The City of Dallas recently sent a delegation to Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, British Columbia, to observe their streetcar systems. Paid for by a private foundation, these elected officials and city staff members came back with lots of observations as Dallas prepares to expand its own streetcar line beyond McKinney Avenue (and with modern cars).
One of the observations that was brought back was a reflection on the number of young neo-urban hipsters hanging out in coffee shops, bookstores and brewpubs. It was noticed that almost every urban block had a coffee shop or two (some Starbuck's stores, but also Peet's, Pups and Cups, Anna Banana's and others). All the young (and not so young) neo-urban hipsters were apparently drawn to Portland by the vast number of coffee shops, as well as by the many bookstores and brewpubs.
So the official observers deduced that for Dallas to get more neo-urban hipsters for its streetcars, Dallas needs more coffee shops, brewpubs, and bookstores. But what drew the coffee shops, bookstores, and brewpubs to Portland in the first place? A visit with the landscape architects from Awful+Design (Portland's famous transportation fashion boutique) revealed the answer: Bike Lanes.
According to Awful, Portland was a dying city that looked an "awful" lot like Beaumont, Texas (a city that's a lot like Portland, except that it's flat and hot and humid, almost devoid of interesting architecture or public spaces, and the water has an odd color and odor). But once Portland began installing bike lanes, the coffee shops, bookstores and brewpubs followed as if a modern-day "Johnny Coffee Bean" had come down the bike lanes, spreading unroasted beans to his right unto the sidewalks where the coffee shops sprouted almost overnight (because he could only ride to the far right side of the streets, the beans he threw to the left were crushed by cars and grew not).
Once the coffee shops, bookstores and brewpubs sprang up, the young (and not so young) neo-urban hipsters soon followed in droves. Portland was revitalized, the Metro and streetcars were running, the coffee and ale flowed, and the streets hummed to the sound of post-modern literature being discussed and to The Decemberists.
13 comments:
Tell you guys that having the downtown Dallas Starbucks charge no more than the Sundance Square Fort Worth Starbucks would be a good start...
Steve, I actually think their idea is to be able to charge even more.
It's easy to poke fun at the hipsters, and the fixie crowd, and the xtracyclists, and the hipsters, and the streetcar drivers, and the spandex crowd, and coffee drinking fools, and the hipsters, but what's the answer? Better yet, what's the question?
Obviously it's not just about boosting ridership for streetcars—it’s about creating a city with a decent quality of life. A city that people will WANT to live in. A city with a built environment that contributes to not detracts from quality of life. A city that has a diverse and vibrant economy.
Having lived in many places, in my opinion, the more car-free you can make a place, the higher the quality of life.
Implicit in the "need" for streetcars is the notion that the built environment should be or by necessity will be more car-unfriendly and as a result, transportation alternatives are required.
As you know, bike lanes are powerful SYMBOLS. Symbols that say, at least to some, “Hey, we’re not all red-necks, and provincial yuppies. Even though, as far as you can see there is nothing but big-box-stores, and traffic, and parking lots, and traffic, and churches, and traffic, and drive-thru-beer-barns, and traffic, and more big-box-stores, and traffic—there are some places (other than the mall) where you might actually be able to get out of your car and have a social, civil experience with a variety of things to do and places to see in a pleasant environment.”
As you can see, I am fairly cynical about Dallas. I am however very happy to learn that someone is thinking about these issues and is even taking action. The problem of course, is what’s the appropriate action? What will help Dallas to become a better place to live?
I wish I knew the answer. Do you?
I am not pro-bike lane, but I appreciate the symbolic and psychological effects that I perceive them to have. If helmet laws get people off bikes, do bike lanes get them on bikes? I don’t know the answer to that but it would seem to be at least partially true. They seem to function as strong SOCIAL PROOF that cycling is and accepted activity that lots of people do, and also a placebo against the cycling-danger-complex. That’s a great thing and a problem. Is it a first step or a wrong turn? I don’t know. I just wish Dallas was a nicer place to live, and I knew how to help facilitate that change.
As for the prices at Starbucks, I'd happily pay Paris or New York prices if the experience were on par.
Waco, the issue (and point of the post) is about confusing effect for cause, and vice versa.
I'm an urban transportation planner, and was a resident of Deep Ellum/Expo Park (and Knob Hill and North Beach before that) when it was a little more "pioneering" than it is today. Today, some would categorize me as having suspiciously "hipster-esque" leanings (I've worn Birkenstocks for years). Perhaps I'm a recovering hipster... at least an aging one.
Too often, city father-mothers are swayed by the colorful bow and wrapping, and not by the content. Artificially produced environments seldom have the true qualities of the environment they wish to recreate. Seaside in Florida is a good example.
Symbols are fine... when they are just symbolic. But symbols seldom are. Symbols take on a life of their own far beyond what they were intended to symbolize. That can be (and often is) dangerous.
Don't believe me? Go down to the Earl Cabell Federal Building next Tuesday and stomp on a cloth symbol of the United States.
When a symbol inspires people to a good cause, it's great. But when a symbol puts people's lives at risk, it's a bad thing.
If I ever saw any real evidence that bike lanes increased cycling, I would be impressed, I would report it, and if it was repeatable and didn't put people's lives at risk, I'd begin to change my tune. But I haven't.
I've spent thousands of hours in cities with bike lanes, and I have yet to see them improve the mode share of bicycling as a transportation alternative. I've seen them channel existing cyclists, but not increase their number, and if the facility design is inherently unsafe (as most, if not all bike lanes are), then why do them?
Why? Primarily for political reasons.
The key to big numbers of Utilitarian Cyclists (as opposed to Vehicular Cyclists) is population density. The key to population density is real estate prices. If it's cheaper to build in the cotton fields, and get the State to build highways to them, then people will continue to push into exurbia.
Go to Frisco and talk to the "hip" California transplants who sold their $700,000, 1,100 square foot bungalow, and bought a 3,000 square foot house on a half acre, who then complain about the lack of the high-density amenities they were used to.
Our local MPO knows this, but they promote a band-aid approach (they have to, politically). They use "Mixed-Use Developments" as the solution, but encourage their use in exurbia, and continue to support the building of roads to link exurbia with suburbia and urban areas (and transportation hubs, like DFW Airport).
Waco, I live inside Loop 12 in Dallas, and I do so intentionally. My daughters went through DISD, intentionally (they've done quite well on the university level, thank you). We made the decision to live IN the city I fight for. Few of my colleagues have. It makes a difference in one's commitment.
I believe Dallas is a great city, in spite of its low population density. But Dallas is Dallas. The goal should be to take advantage of what Dallas has as opposed to trying to reinvent the city to be something it isn't ever going to be. The goal should be to look at what Dallas was like up through the early 1950s (minus Segregation), not try and artificially emulate high-density cities whose growth patterns are totally different.
A city like Portland has over ten times the population density of Dallas. That makes a huge difference, believe me. A city like Copenhagen has 100 times the density.
I oppose bike lanes (and those who promote them) because they are frauds (both of them). They do not promote cycling, they regulate it. They do not make cycling safer, they create more risks.
If they worked (as I once thought they did), I'd be first among their supporters, but being relentlessly reality-based, I can't.
P.S. I have nothing against "hipsters"... any more than I do against any other artificially segmented marketing niche. I really am more than JUST a contrarian.
PM - what ever happened to the "Vuuneroof" (butchered spelling) concept for the Design District? That was supposed to be car-restricted, or something like that, and thus more walker-friendly, wasn't it?
I've lived in Boise, and Bozeman, and the main thing that contributes to their 'hipness' is the fact that there's a viable University within cycling distance of Main Street. I used to walk to class all the time. Both towns also have veloways that border a river. Both also have bike lanes, though they really are not frequently used (winter/salt/debris that never gets wiped up). My wife and I constantly ride in downtown Seattle, which has a ton of cyclists, but really very, very few bike lanes. Of course, they also have a great bus/bike system, charge a fraction of the price a car pays for the ferries, and I'm guessing they'll allow bikes on the monorail.
I think that the original plan for the Trinity would've given us something scenic to ride leisurely around. I think that the Stemmons Park will give us another destination, but PM, you have said it before, and I completely agree with you about it, downtown lacks signs of life because it does NOT have a viable University. No dorms, no hell-raising. No profs using their bikes to get from their bungalows to class. Minimal bike racks.
It all comes together. The City continues to fumble to the 'burbs, and the Q of L perception continues to struggle somewhat.
No doubt that your offspring were 10% ers. I keep telling my brother that, but he's got DISD Inferiority Complex, an affliction similar to your Cycling Inferiority Complex. Equally treatable, but for some reason the parents continue to believe that the immunization of prevention is more responsible for Cycling/Education Autism than evidence would suggest. Folk Medicine wins again.
Final note, this one positive. Write these down:
Lewis-Greenville-Alta-Summit-Euclid-Sears-McMillan-Melrose-Madera-Bonita-Henderson-Homer-Miller-Henderson-Knox-Katy. Less traffic, more scenic, confidence-building, user-friendly, lower speeds. Repeat backwards for return trip home. Critique? Comments?
PM, as usual, I'm with you. I know you're more than just a contrarian. I hope the tone of my comment wasn't misleading.
I guess what I was trying to say was that beyond false cause and effect, beyond the questions of transportation infrastructure and how do we get more folks on bikes, I was trying to get at the questions of how do we improve quality of life and what is/should be the direction/goals/form of the city?
I say that because that's what I'm grappling with as a resident and I can't come up with an answer.
You said, "The goal should be to look at what Dallas was like up through the early 1950s..." THAT has me really curious. What do you mean by that? What was Dallas like?
Richard, I'm not sure the city keeps "fumbling" to the suburbs. What they have done is quit giving billionaires more citizen money to build monuments to themselves. Remember, Arlington has the Rangers and the Cowboys because that city was allowed to use the .25% sales tax authority that other cities use for transit to build more amusement parks.
A Woonerf, Woonerven (pl.) (a.k.a. Living Streets) hasn't been of interest to developers. They prefer to scrape whole blocks and start from scratch. The one we had in the plans was killed by a large (and very prominent) developer who wanted the area focus on their "holdings", and by the recalcitrance of DART and a railroad.
Nice route, but I don't see crossing Central at Knox/Henderson as being desirable to a beginning commuter, with McCommas, Monticello, and Hall being the least stressful.
East on Lewis from Greenville
R on Henderson
L on Monarch
L on Prairie
R on Munger
R jog on Carroll
L on Munger
R on Hall
L on State
R on Fairmount
L on Wolf(?)
I avoid the Katy Trail because of its inherent dangers (over three times more likely to suffer a serious injury on that trail than on the streets we mention... especially at peak hours).
waco, sorry if I seem defensive at times, but the "grass is always greener" stuff wears thin (not accusing you, that's just what I get a lot of).
I have brought folks to Dallas who were just blown away by it. They had no idea.
When the American Planning Association came to Dallas (before DART opened the Blue & Red Lines), I led a bike tour of about 30 planners from Union Station out to Mockingbird Station, up through Uptown, and back down Swiss Avenue, all on Bike Routes. We had a box lunch at Preservation Dallas on Swiss (go there if you haven't). Over lunch, the Director of Transportation for the City of Portland told me our route system was much better than their lane system, and he wished they could do something like that, but it was a politically driven plan they had.
Uptown blew him away, the McKinney trolley amazed him.
I had a long, heated argument with someone from the State Historic Preservation Office of the Texas Historical Commission about the McKinney trolley. It exemplified to anti-Dallas sentiment that creeps into so many discussions.
We were looking to expand the trolley, and I had identified all the streets where the trolley use to run, as we needed to use old routes for historic preservation reasons (to get Federal dollars). This senior member of the THC/SHPO told me Dallas didn't have an historic trolley, but that all we had were rubber-wheeled trolley-buses (like Austin has). We ARGUED this! He could not believe that we had historic trolley cars running on historic tracks. Simply refused, because "you're Dallas". Idiot. But we got past him.
Dallas inside Loop 12 is a highly desirable, highly livable environment. Dallas through the early 1950s was built along street car lines, with lots of mixed-use development (they didn't use that word). Cars weren't required. The population density was pretty high, the streetcars and buses covered the city, with lots of "mini-downtowns" (Jefferson in Oak Cliff, Lakewood Center, McKinney Avenue, Bryan/Peak, Davis Street). Look for A.C. Greene's book on Dallas ("Dallas Remembered"?), or find a copy of the 1930's WPA "Guide to Dallas" that the Dallas Library and the Dallas Historic League reprinted a few years ago. Fascinating reading.
One of Dallas' biggest problems is the "Dallas Isn't Cool" mindset. That exists for a number of reason, none of which are accurate. But as whareagle pointed out, my big complaint, my fix-it, would be a public university for Dallas. That's the one element Dallas is missing. The UNT Dallas campus is a sad joke. UT Dallas is merely an extension of TI. SMU... we won't go there. Hell (pun intended), the best thing we've got is Dallas Theological Seminary in East Dallas (when I retire, I want to open up a small pub on Swiss Avenue near DTS - which forbids its faculty to smoke or drink - called "The Whitehorse Tavern"... look up the reference).
The problem of course, is what’s the appropriate action? What will help Dallas to become a better place to live?
Some things can not be discussed in public.
pmsummer at gmail dot com.
White Horse Tavern.
interesting argument.
Im a california native and have lived throughout the state at any given time, and not the whole state has "amenities" specially not bike ones. Not the whole state has coffee and pub places, like any state different regions are certainly distinct. So I guess the transplants that move to texas give californians a bad, spoiled rep (?) Not all californians are the same, like Im sure you can argue with me in a good way, that not all Texans are the same. I think a lot of 'transplants' that move here (to CA) from the east coast are lame, but of course I have met pretty rad people and friends that have proved me wrong over time. Etc..
Im sure cycling and involved advocacy could make thing better in the future. Anyways -
XO/ from a (huge)coffee lover (as you may know) in san francisco.
m e l i g r o s a,
I attended the San Francisco Art Institute in what now seems like a previous lifetime. I love the city.
meligrosa, then you might find this of interest...
http://coffeemugshots.blogspot.com/
:D
Post a Comment