A story in this morning's ER reports that Chico's downtown was recognized by the California Planning and Development Report as California's third best mid-sized city's downtown. Even with all the qualifications (California, mid-sized, etc.), third best is a pretty good ranking out of 94 communities that qualified by virtue of populations between 75,000 and 250,000.

Still, I'm not about to go running out in the streets, waving a giant, foam-rubber Boy Scout's salute shouting "We're number three! We're number three!"

Ahead of us in the poll were Pasadena and Santa Barbara, while Berkeley and Santa Rosa trailed. Pretty estimable company, certainly, and perhaps there's something we can learn from our companions on the medals stand.

It is probably worthwhile to briefly explain that the CP&DR describes itself as "the authoritative periodical on planning and development issues - required reading for planners, land-use lawyers, developers, environmentalists, citizen activists, and others interested and involved in the process of planning and development in California." I've never heard of it, which doesn't really mean anything, but apparently they think very highly of themselves. Which may well betray a highly perceptive acumen, inasmuch as they also think very highly of us.

This Sacramento Valley city may be California’s ultimate college town, and that is reflected in the downtown, which lies just across Second Street from the third-oldest campus in the CSU system. Like any good college town, Chico is replete with nightclubs, sports bars, coffee houses, eateries, bookstores and even shops that sell vinyl records. The place literally pulses with energy well into the night. But you’ll also find stores and services that clearly appeal to the college kids’ parents, upper-floor professional offices, artist studios and civic institutions. A carefully revamped downtown plaza is only going to get better as it matures, and new housing is on the way. The edge of Bidwell Park — a 4,000-acre jewel that extends for miles from the valley floor into the foothills — is only a couple blocks away.

And while there remain some artist studios in the city center, a great many of them have vanished in recent years, as rents have increased. It's probably a positive transformation in the sense that value is increasing, but their departure contributes to the vacancy rate, and diminishes the cultural dimension of the district.

But overall, these compliments paid to Chico's downtown are valid, and we should take a moment to appreciate that we really do have a great city center with a strong sense of place, plenty of commercial, cultural, and civic benefits, and a community that values it enough to support it.

It is worth taking a moment, while we do so, to examine the advantages of the other leading downtowns, and see if there isn't something we can learn from them. Old Pasadena, for example, which the CP&DR authors call the "gold standard", began their revitalization process with "strategically located parking garages", which evolved, ironically, into "a transit-oriented housing strategy". As I observed in an earlier entry, Pasadena also utilizes performance-based pricing for on-street parking to manage demand dynamics, something the city of Chico is now considering.

Santa Barbara's downtown is a pedestrian paradise, due to "grand civic structures, lush gardens and the well-maintained Alameda and Chase Palm parks". Chico is struggling with plans to enhance and maintain Children's Playground. As I've pointed out elsewhere, we have a lot of private asphalt that could be converted to pedestrian space. I hope the Santa Barbara example can demonstrate why we should invest in those improvements. Still, we do have the new city plaza, the rose garden at Ringel Park, and an urban forester who has greatly improved the health and vitality of our downtown street trees. As we wrestle with spending priorities, I hope we will continue to see the long-range return on aesthetic investments.

The CP&DR also point out the disadvantages of the bottom five in their survey, including our neighbor to the north, Redding. They say smart people learn from their mistakes, but wise people learn from others' mistakes. Here's hoping our community leaders pay attention to both ends of the spectrum.

Posted by Alan Chamberlain at 08:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Throughout the "Greater Downtown" series I've been publishing here for the past two months, I've tried to examine the city center as a whole system, with a specific vision for its future. I've explored best practices in other successful communities, the pedestrian environment and walkability, public transit, the sorry state of the sidewalks, access and circulation, the farmer's markets, vacancy issues, a whimsical suggestion of a downtown    "How long has THAT been there?"
ballpark, and some of the local heroes who help to make downtown the jewel that it is.

But today we're going to talk about the single most critical factor in sustaining the progress we've made in recent years, and realizing a vision of a city center that is vital, dynamic, and successful for all stakeholders. Yes, my friends, we're going to talk about parking.

I know some of you are already glazing over at the mere mention of temporary automobile storage, and I understand why. It is a subject that has been shrouded almost exclusively in emotionalism. The topic is so polarized that most discussions about it quickly devolve into a rapid exchange of slogans and ad hominems. And I think part of the problem is that the question is nearly always posed as a quantitative analysis. The two "ends" of the debate (if an argument that is at once circular and endless can be said to have ends) can be reduced to "we need more parking" and "we have plenty of parking". Both are true. Both are false. Let's turn this thing around and look at it another way.

As I said in an earlier post, I'm prepared to concede the argument that we have "plenty" of parking, subject to two stipulations; it's in the wrong places, and it's in the wrong hands. Accdording to the results of the now infamous March 2006 charrette, 46% of the over 4000 parking spaces in the total downtown are in private lots. In their analysis of parking supply and demand, the charrette facilitators did not break out the private lots from the municipal lots and on-street parking. This is a flawed analysis, in my judgment, inasmuch as private lots are criminally undersubscribed. Take a walk around the downtown on any busy weekday, and you'll see that most private parking lots are always nearly empty. Bank parking lots, in particular, while serving a fairly high churn rate, nevertheless, are usually only about half-filled at any particular time.

Thus, when the charrette folks analyzed parking demand in the two blocks bounded by 2nd, 3rd, Salem and Main Streets, they calculated 85% occupancy (and thus ideal), notwithstanding that over 25% of the parking in that area is on private lots, and is undersubscribed. The idea that "85% is typically considered the optimal balance between making efficient use of the supply and making it easy to find a space" is based on there being a space or two available on street in each block face. But if 25% of the parking analyzed is in private hands, then the 15% of "available" parking is in fact unavailable, and those open spaces on street are largely mythical.

The charrette analysis goes on to claim that occupancy in "Sub Area 1" (bounded by 1st, 3rd, Salem and Flume streets) is only 71%, but again, fails to take into account that 25% of the spaces in that district are in private hands, so the actual availability of on-street parking spaces is significantly lower than 29%, as anyone who's tried to find a convenient on-street parking during the day will attest.

It has been argued that if people were willing to walk "a few blocks" they could find plenty of open spaces, which may be true, but that's irrelevant. I am not arguing that patrons can't find parking, but that the current parking supply is not suited to the very large number of employees and business owners that must park for extended periods of time.

Again, the whole discussion bogs down on the false analysis of quantity. Quantity is not the problem. 4000 parking spaces probably is a sufficient number of spaces. The problem is in the market model, and in the pricing.

Some private spaces are not available at any price. Unless you have business with the bank, you cannot park in their lots. And in recent years, most banking services are delivered online, so the demand for parking at the bricks-and-mortar bank branches is significantly reduced. Their lots are more than half-empty all day, radiating heat, and offering bleak streetscapes to adjacent pedestrians.

Other privately operated lots offer leased spaces (as does the city on its municipal lots) to individuals' exclusive use. This is terribly inefficient, inasmuch as even those who use their spaces all day every weekday leave them empty on evenings and weekends. As we've seen, the demand for parking is acute at those times, as well.

At symposium on innovative parking strategies held July 25 in Sacrmaneto, three key reforms were identified by several presenters. They are:

Nothing contributes to the decline of a downtown so much as vacancy. Every empty storefront is a chilling sign of deterioration. Turnover is natural, and businesses that aren't successful will inevitably close their doors, but if there isn't a new operator to move in behind them, the effect on the block, and the entire district, is distressing.

Moxie's café is now officially out of business. There had been a coy "remodelling, open soon" sign in the window for a month or so, but now there's a For Lease sign on the door, and a look inside confirms that the site is lifeless.

I have fond memories of Moxie's. I played there many times with my trio, booked and promoted other artists there, and made several live recordings there. It was not an especially suitable venue in terms of acoustics, but it was one of the few venues in town where you could hear pretty much any kind of music, from entry level open-mike types to touring recording artists. They held poetry slams there as well, and while they served beer and wine, it was family-friendly, and a place where teens could hang out. Back in 1999, I installed and supported the computer network for patrons to surf the internet. It was, by a month or so, the first "internet café" in Chico (Has Beans opened shortly after the Moxie's network was available).

Perhaps Moxie's failure is a sign that downtown Chico has become overcaffeinated. It's not as though downtowners are at any risk of not being able to find a cup of coffee within a few steps of their door, after all. Since Moxie's opened at the old Sienna Café location, downtown has been inundated with coffeehouses. In addition to the aforementioned Has Beans, the Naked Lounge (my personal favorite even though it's terminally trendy, especially among the pierced-and-tattooed set), Augie's, Peet's, and Starbuck's have opened. Upper Crust and Brooklyn Bridge Bagel Works have been serving coffee for awhile, as well. Plenty of options for a cup of joe and a crust of bread in the city center.

Of all the coffee joints in town, Moxie's was probably the most "bohemian". It served as the unofficial gathering place for lefty politics, and was the main venue for election night return watching for the self-described progressive community. I can idly speculate that the demise of Moxie's might indicate an eroding momentum for the Esplanade League and its ilk, but it's a vain hope, certainly.

I'm much more likely to believe that Moxie's is the victim of accelerated mediocrity. Competition is stiff, and as Yogi Berra says, if people don't want to go the ball game, you can't stop them.

Of a larger concern is the absence of a tooth in a very prominent smile. That's the first block of Broadway, nearest the University. When a coffeehouse that explicitly caters to students and provides a casual, comfortable place to study and visit with friends can't turn enough business to thrive, something is wrong. When the students return in the fall, if that store is still shuttered, it's going to make a very bad impression on a critical market segment for downtown.

Confetti Party Headquarters is closing its doors, as well. This is also an unhappy sign. I'm told that the business is continuing, with an online commerce model, but no longer a downtown institution. This is troubling, inasmuch as these storefronts, in prime downtown locations, are joining the other 30,000 square feet of retail space in the downtown core sitting empty, and 30,000 feet of second-floor office and commercial space untenanted.

I hear people saying that the downtown is the heart of the community, but the truth is that Chico has heart trouble. Downtown is at a critical crossroads, and it could go either way. It could benefit from increased private investment, new businesses locating there, and more patrons visiting. Or it could continue to disintegrate as businesses fail or relocate and are not replaced.

There are no easy answers, but it is clear to this observer that the current strategies for sustaining the downtown as the community's cultural, civic, and commercial center are inadequate. And that makes me worry.

Posted by Alan Chamberlain at 09:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (7)

Dan Burden, Director of Walkable Communities, Inc. cites Chico as an example of a "walkable community". I found this interesting, inasmuch as I've thought we come up short in that area. Certainly projects like Meriam Park offer walkability as a competitive advantage, so it's reasonable to assume that the rest of Chico is less than optimally pedestrianized.

So I wrote to Burden, who very graciously replied that Chico has "excellent block form (level of networking streets), quality buildings and intact town center, level of aliveness of streets a number of hours a day ... good nearby parks, investment in the town plaza, new investments in downtown, most government services and postal service located in downtown, presence of the campus in a central town location, care of historic homes, good streets, number of "complete streets" and streets with bike lanes, numbers of streets undergoing traffic calming, especially near the hospital."

When you put it that way, well sure, Chico looks pretty good. Still, there is room for improvement. Some of the suggestions he offers include "reduction of one-way streets, downtown traffic management plan update, improved pedestrian crossings, added traffic calming". Since we recently conducted a charrette considering both parking and access, we have some ideas on the table for these perceived walkability deficits.

I was particularly interested in Burden's recommendation to reduce one-way streets. That idea came up during the charrette as well, and while various configurations were presented, the advantages of doing so were not clearly identified. So I did a little digging, and I found some interesting thoughts.

The advantages of one-way streets are primarily about expediting traffic flows. This is largely the exact opposite of what is called "traffic calming", so there may be good reason to reevaluate our downtown street network strategies.

Disadvantages of one-way streets include:
• Large blocks require more driving to circle a block
• Higher speeds discourage pedestrian activity
• Reduced pedestrian traffic deters business
• Increases emergency response time
• Increases volumes on other streets
• Increases weaving between lanes

As it happens, the one-way artierials of Third and Fourth Streets exhibit all of these disadvantages. Despite posted speed limits, motorists traveling either of these corridors exceed safe speeds routinely. They do indeed cause more driving to navigate the downtown, and whereas Second Street has abundant foot traffic, on Third and Fourth there is very little pedestrian activity, which certainly is bad for the businesses located there.

Part of the problem is that people don't really use these streets as intended, to carry "rush hour" traffic into and out of the downtown at peak demand times. Most people still use Second Street as their primary East/West access/egress venue, resulting in nightmare congestion as people try to make left turns onto Main or Broadway. Clearly, this strategy is a failure, and should be reconsidered.

Downtown Chico has a lot of events that take place on the streets, resulting in frequent street closures. Because Third and Fourth Streets are one-way arterials, this requires whole blocks to be closed down even when they aren't being used for event exhibitors or activities. This takes close-in on-street parking off the game board during these events, increasing parking difficulty at high-demand times.

Curiously, the charrette discussion of one-way vs. two-way configurations never examined Third and Fourth Streets. That discussion was centered on the Main/Broadway couplet, and offered various approaches to reducing both the number of lanes and concommitant speed of vehicles. I have my doubts that these streets will be redesigned as two-way streets (although I think reducing total lanes could help calm traffic), specifically because people do use them as a principal North/South corridor. So I think segregating the traffic on these streets makes sense, but we do have to slow it down. The transition from two lanes southbound on Esplanade and Shasta Way to Broadway invariably results in a "raceway" effect as motorists, perceiving faster traffic flows (incorrectly; the lights are timed for 25 MPH) jockey for position, accelerate unsafely, and imperil pedestrians.

The city's Capital Projects Services Director, Tom Varga, does not believe that reducing the number of lanes on Broadway and Main is a good idea, citing double-parked delivery trucks as impediments to traffic. I agree that they are impediments, but I believe this can be mitigated by restricting access to downtown streets for deliveries to off-peak hours. Why beer truck drivers insist on making their deliveries at the shank of the lunch hour remains a mystery. Certainly their customers have their hands full serving the public at that time, and must find receiving goods at noon quite inconvenient. I think if you restrict deliveries in downtown to before 11 AM, everyone can be well-stocked, and traffic can flow easily, if at a reduced speed, so that motorists can see what delights the downtown offers, and so that pedestrians can enjoy safer surroundings.

Burden concludes that Chico is "head and shoulders above the majority of towns looking for a way to drown themselves by kneeling on both knees or bending over backwards in the fast moving tidal waters." Rejoice, therefore, but let's keep moving in a positive direction.

Posted by Alan Chamberlain at 06:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

This week I'm going to ask the question "What if?" In this instance, I'm asking "What if we had a downtown ballpark?" When we examined best practices in other communities, we saw that the construction of a new ballpark in the downtown had a significant economic development impact in San Diego. Of course, Chico doesn't have a major league team, but as a community, we've been pretty supportive of baseball. Having a nationally-ranked team at Chico State has certainly encouraged interest in the national pastime. The Chico Heat, although part of a struggling and ultimately failing Western Baseball League, was enormously popular over the years. The Chico Outlaws, having just won a team record 11 consecutive games, may become as successful at putting backsides in buckets as they've become at winning games.

Nettleton Stadium is a nice ballpark. But it's probably not ideal for the Outlaws, inasmuch as they must share it with the University. Certainly the possibility of including a baseball facility in Meriam Park stems from long-term plans for a dedicated venue for the Outlaws to play. So it's not as though the status quo is indefinitely acceptable.

The photo above shows Nettleton Stadium relocated, through the magic of Photoshop, in downtown Chico. The infield is approximately where the US Bank branch at Second and Wall is currently located. That, and the old laundry building on that angled spur of First Street, would need to be removed, as well as a chunk of Parking Lot 5. The Sierra Central Credit Union is left alone in this fantasy, resulting in a shorter right field than "the Nett" currently has, but that's okay; more home runs. Hey, people like offense.

More importantly, people who attend baseball games have discretionary income to spend on entertainment. What if there were an additional 1500-3000 people in the downtown area an average of fifteen nights per month when the students are gone? What sort of impact would that have on the economy downtown? Right now most games start at around 7 PM, so regular patrons who may not be interested in a steady diet of hot dogs and peanuts might patronize the many restaurants that suffer a huge hit every summer when Chico State is not holding classes. People who are already in the downtown might be inclined to bridge the workday and the ballgame with a happy hour or two. Certainly retailers would be encouraged to stay open until 7 on game days. People who have money to spend on game tickets, souvenirs, and refreshments also have money for apparel, decor, giftware, and especially sporting goods.

With the transit center located a few blocks away, a great many fans could take the B-Line to the game, which is difficult at the current location. Of course, the buses would have to run an hour later than currently, although that's a service that would certainly pay for itself. Alternatively, gametime could be pushed up to 6 PM, since the shade pattern would be more favorable as depicted above. This would make it easier for families with children to enjoy the game, even on a school night, since most games would be over before 9 PM. Probably add some late evening dollars to restaurants' cash boxes.

Some might ask about parking. The lot at Nettleton Stadium has approximately 180 spaces, and seems to be nearly adequate to the purpose. The lot at 2nd and Wall has 173, so it could be argued that that lot, plus the remaining parking west of the stadium in the photo above, would be enough. That said, building the stadium would take a significant number of long-term (10-hour) spaces off the game board, so they'd need to be replaced somewhere. Moreover, it's not as though the game is the only draw in the downtown, particularly with the Thursday Night Market and Friday Night Concerts at the same time as the games. Other entertainment options would likely spring up with so many people leaving the stadium at that time of night, as well.

So realistically, before something like this could happen, investment in new parking facilities would have to happen first. Adding 1500-3000 people to the urban core four nights a week all summer would consume existing capacity and then some. So the real question is "What if we had an additional 500 parking spaces at Second and Wall Streets?"

And the answer is not necessarily "a downtown ballpark". I'm not sure that's the best use of that parcel. But the idea of luring a great many more people into the city center during the summer is certainly a good one, as the Thursday Night Markets and Friday Night Concerts demonstrate. But in order to accomodate them, however they happen to be attracted, more parking will certainly be required.

Posted by Alan Chamberlain at 06:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Despite the cost and concrete, the new city plaza seems to be a big hit with more than the usual coterie of the residentially challenged that inhabited the previous plaza. People predicted that the lack of shade, the thousands of yards of cement, and the "big city" design would discourage folks from visiting, but they were clearly mistaken. On any given weekday, you'll find working folks, families, seniors, and lots of kids hanging out, having lunch, frolicking in the fountain, admiring the mural, or just lounging on the raised lawns. Hell, I've even seen people playing chess.

Last night at the Thursday Night Market, there must have been hundreds of people enjoying the casual intimacy that relative strangers indulge when they're in a public square. And it isn't hard to understand why. Just look at it; it's clean.

This is is stark contrast, alas, to the rest of the pedestrian space in Chico. Compared with the sidewalks in most of the district, the streets themselves are clean enough to eat off of. It's no wonder, then, when people are asked why they don't come downtown, that one of the first complaints (after parking; a perennial #1), is the filthy sidewalks.

Not all of the sidewalks are dirty, of course. At right is an example of a well-kept sidewalk, in front of a popular fine dining establishment that understands that you don't get a second chance to make a first impression.

It doesn't really take that much effort to maintain a clean front walk. If you visit the downtown area early in the day, before most stores are even open, you will find solitary figures, hose in hand, giving their respective stoops a good rinse. Because this water flows to the creeks, use of cleaning chemicals on the sidewalks is prohibited, which doesn't make it any easier, but regular, frequent hosing down keeps the grunge down to a faint patina. In addition to Christian Michaels, properties that regularly wash their walks include Third & Main, Pluto's, and Mayo Law Clinic. Bill Mayo hoses the sidewalk in front of his building every Saturday morning, and often continues up the street past his property line. That's civic involvement at the street level, folks.

Unfortunately not every business owner or property manager shares this sense of public duty. Maybe they can't see it. Maybe they don't care. But this mess at left is not an isolated example. A brief stroll around the businest streets in downtown reveals numerous locations that have spilled food, dog crap, cigarette butts, litter, dead leaves, and a thick, sticky layer of just plain old garden variety crud. On weekend mornings, especially, there is a variety of food and beverage products abandoned on the sidewalk, sometimes partially digested, sometimes fully, sometimes not.

I've heard a number of people say that they think the city, or the DCBA, should take care of this problem. As it happens, the city does, from time to time (maybe twice a year, budget permitting) hire a water blasting contractor to pressure wash the surface. Again, they can't use any chemicals; it must be clear water only. But hot water at high speed will take off that top layer of oily muck, and even dislodge the occasional spoor of chewing gum. Gum removal is a separate operation, requiring extra effort on the part of the contractor, and additional fees. This comprehensive cleaning took place just last spring, although you wouldn't know it to look at it now.

The specific scope of the DCBA's mission does not include maintenance of the public way. It has neither the authority nor the resources to wash the sidewalks. The DCBA does manage a litter control effort on weekends. The unflagging RIchard Elsom leads crews of people sentenced to public service around the downtown with brooms and dustpans to sweep up the detritus of urban life each week. Right now he's also conducting a more comprehensive sweep of the downtown with a group of young people in the Upwardly Bound program. More than once I've seen Richard pull up in his pickup with a shovel to scrape up somebody else's dog poop. And the DCBA manages the planters downtown, keeping them colorful and weed-free, as well. So the city and the DCBA do what they can, but ultimate responsibility for keeping a clean walk rests entirely with the street level shop or restaurant.

Maintaining an attractive appearance is not simply a matter of hosing down the walk, either. Blight comes in many forms. Things get boisterous in downtown, and sometimes windows get broken. While it may take a couple days to get it repaired, leaving it unattended for weeks at a time is simply unacceptable. It makes the entire streetscape look seedy and run down. The photo at right is but one example of deferred maintenance blighting what by rights should be a showcase. Certainly the efforts of the aforementioned Mr. Mayo and the guys who built that fine-looking facade for the Banshee deserve better.

That said, it may be that the Beach Hut folks think this is just business as usual. The truth is that that corner property sat untenanted for quite some time, and it became a refuge for all sort of debris. Neither the property owners nor the management company took pains to keep it swept and neat-looking, which may explain why it was vacant for so long. But considering what it looked like when the sandwich shop saw it the first time, they may well believe that the broken window is "no big deal".

Similarly, the photo at left is in front of the old Oser's building. The windows are filled with For Rent signs, but the walk out front practically screams "Do Not Enter". You'd think that someone eager to sign new tenants would do more to make it look inviting. A garden hose, and fifteen minutes, would make all the difference in the world.

It's the little things that make a city look nice. It doesn't take all that much time to sweep the sidewalk, wash the windows, replace burned out bulbs, and keep their signage and awnings clean and in good repair. But it does take giving a damn about how your storefront looks to the rest of the community. Perhaps further motivation is needed. Last year, a new ordinance was passed to require downtown shops to bring in their garbage cans by 9 AM. It seems a couple of places were leaving their bins on the sidewalk all day, and it took passing a law to get them to change their practice. Perhaps what is needed is a public nuisance ordinance requiring tenants -- or in their absence the property owners or managers -- to maintain a reasonably clean sidewalk in front of their premises, as well as keeping their windows, awnings and signage clean and in good repair. Instead of saddling the city with additional costs to maintain a decent downtown, make it a code enforcement issue, and maybe even generate some new revenues in the form of fines.

Here are a few more examples of downtown Chico's "Walk of Shame".

Posted by Alan Chamberlain at 06:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (9)

A few years ago I turned 50, right about the time I got fed up with my local MD. I went back to my old Bay Area doctor, Flash Gordon, he late of Herb Caen's column and the Haight Ashbury Free Medical Clinic. We used to play in a band together about 20 years ago, as well. Since it had been awhile, and what with my advancing age, Flash performed a complete physical. He was concerned about my heart. I had three of four risk factors; family history, elevated cholesterol level, male over 50. Actually, the words he used were "Where do you want the flowers sent?" He's a good doc, but could work on the bedside manner...

Seriously, though, we did a whole bunch of tests, and I'm actually in pretty good shape, sudden-cardiac-arrest-wise. But before we got the results of the stress echocardiogram back, Flash suggested I get more exercise. I protested, in the way of self-important middle-aged, middle-class white guys. I don't have the time to go the the gym, lots of important work to do, etc. He said "just park a little farther away from your office."

Which made a certain amount of sense, actually. Parking is tough enough in downtown as it is, without trying to play the Find-The-Closest-Possible-Space game. Now I play the Find-The-Closest-Unmetered-Space game. I'm probably getting in an extra mile a day easy.

Since I come into downtown from the east, I usually find a spot either on Third or Flume. There's about 30 spaces within a block of that intersection without meters, and it's unusual that I can't find one. If not, I'll try Fourth, Orient, etc. Even from as far away as the University of Phoenix, it doesn't take but ten minutes to get to my office on Second between Main and Broadway. Except when I run into people I want to chat with, which happens a lot, and almost never happened when I was parking in close.

As a result of all this perambulation, I've become acutely aware of the pedestrian environment in downtown. It sucks, to speak plainly. Not more than most cities, but sucks nevertheless. Ironically, it's the parking that causes this acute state of vacuum.

In the vast postwar expansion that led to the motorization of most communities, the pedestrian environment became an afterthought to the motorway. It's called a "sidewalk" after all, because it's beside the street. As streets were widened, sidewalks narrowed. And as more merchants wanted to provide close in free parking for their patrons, vast lots were created with white stripes and "Private Parking" signs sprouting from the asphalt. To be fair, many communities required developers to include on site parking or pay in-lieu fees. So it is in Chico.

End result is that the "pedestrian environment" in downtown Chico consists of cutting across parking lots. There's actually a lot of private parking in the city center, and one can get around quite a bit without walking alongside a motorway, so long as one is content to navigate around stationary autos. It really isn't that tough, since these private lots are criminally underutilized. At a time when available parking in downtown has reached a critical stage, maintaining a private lot with few occupants is about as antisocial an act as spitting on the sidewalk or smoking in a doorway..

If you go back and study the previous entries regarding the best practices of Austin, Berkeley, and other communities, one common strategy stands out; Pedestrianize The Downtown. This is what we must do if downtown Chico is to thrive as the cultural heart of the city and surrounding region.

On Wednesday and Friday, I will be proposing some specific ideas as to how we can make the downtown a pedestrian paradise. We can create an oasis of cute alleys, serene patios, vest-pocket parks, broad malls, and cozy courtyards, but first we have to rip up all the private parking. We may have to take out a few buildings, as well. With so much space currently untenanted, I think we can afford it.

Imagine, if you will, the Diamond Alley extending north to Big Chico Creek, and south to Seventh Street, with lawns, trees, shrubbery, park benches, and other amenities exclusively for pedestrians, not just some strip of cement along the road, but an actual walkable downtown, graced with cafes, shady plazas, and broad boulevards with no vehicular traffic except at crosswalks. We can get there from here. More on Wednesday.

Posted by Alan Chamberlain at 06:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Chico can be fairly criticized for its contentious and frequently divisive politics, but we're in the Tee Ball League compared with Berkeley, California. As Carolyn Jones of the San Francisco Chronicle notes, it's a civic deliberation that "bickers over everything from vacant lots to old-growth eucalyptus". These are the big leagues of acrimonious local politics.

So it was with considerable interest that I read about a new project in downtown Berkeley that has no opposition. Particularly since it is not some trivial vacant lot, but a 19-story hotel and condominium complex right between the BART station and the University, to be called the Berkeley Charles Hotel.

Part of the reason there was no controversy surrounding this project is because the Berkeley Planning Department created a Downtown Area Plan Advisory Committee to oversee plans for the city center. Traditionally conflicting parties all have a seat at the table, and collaborate on creative solutions rather than scheming to thwart their respective political enemies' ambitions. Maybe Chico could learn something from this.

A Bank of America branch currently occupies the site on Center Street in Berkeley, between Shattuck and Oxford. It is an unattractive structure, as modern bank buildings tend to be. As Lesley Emmington Jones of the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association observed, "Everyone knows that B of A building is a planning mistake. That site needs something with complexity and life." Sound familiar?

Continue reading "

Greater Downtown - Lessons From Berkeley

Posted by Alan Chamberlain at 06:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

They say a smart man learns from his mistakes, but a wise man learns from others’ mistakes. I’m sure it will come as a surprise to some, but the opportunities and challenges facing Chico’s downtown are not unique. From tiny villages to metropolitan centers, urban planners have been beset and bedeviled by many of the same fundamental issues. It is instructive to examine what other communities have tried in the past, what has worked, and what has not.

Austin, Texas may not seem at first glance to have that much in common with Chico, but despite the difference in size, in terms of downtown revitalization, they both face similar challenges; parking, traffic, open space, retail stimulation, cultural legacy preservation, etc. The good news is that Austin is about a year or two ahead of us. Better news is that Austin has already studied the best practices of other communities. The best news is that they’ve put nearly everything they’ve done online.

One thing that is interesting about Austin is that there are several different groups that are involved in downtown revitalization. While it may appear that there is overlap, each group serves distinctly discrete interests. And while there is some redundancy, this is actually a good thing; if you wear a belt and suspenders, the pants don’t fall down.

From the official perspective, the city of Austin has empanelled a Downtown Commission. This is a standing advisory board that furnishes policymakers with decision support. It coordinates with the City Council’s Downtown Subcommittee, reviews pending ordinances, regulations, and project initiatives affecting the downtown, and furnishes recommendations to the Council and other commissions as appropriate. The Commission also developed and revises the Downtown Neighborhood Plan. Note that this is a neighborhood plan, rather than a business or marketing plan. Certainly the plan includes important discussion of the commercial aspect, but it is, first and foremost, a neighborhood with a business district, not the other way around. Priorities identified in the plan include:

• Make downtown the center for a variety of uses and activities which create a vibrant 24-hour environment. Promote downtown as:
o a regional retail center
o the location of local, state and federal governmental offices
o the location for high density office development
o the location for housing for all income groups
o the location for the music and entertainment industry
o the location for art and cultural activities
• Promote the utilization of the Convention Center and surrounding area to develop tourism and economic opportunities associated with conventions.
• Develop a transportation system which focuses on downtown and permits movement within the area.
• Develop urban design guidelines which enhance Austin's distinctive character.
• Encourage development of parks and open spaces.
• Ensure a safe environment.
• Develop a marketing plan.

It specifies objectives for Land Use, Urban Design, Transportation, Economic Development, the Environment, and Public and Human Services.

Continue reading "

Greater Downtown - Best Practices

Posted by Alan Chamberlain at 06:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

For anything purposeful to be accomplished, it must first be imagined. The animating principle to any project or program is called a vision because it can be seen in the mind. The future of downtown Chico is in the minds of those who ask “what if?” Vision is not a clear finished print so much as a fluid cascade of images unfolding like a Quicktime slide show.

When the now infamous charrette consultants presented their recommendations to the city council, many downtown stakeholders testified in the public hearing about the need for a unifying vision for the future. Indeed, the council directed staff to recommend a process for producing such a thing. There has been some sentiment that it should properly emerge as an element of the general plan revision. While I certainly agree that a general plan without a comprehensive element defining city planning and development standards for the central business district is incomplete, I am not persuaded that the question of articulating a clear and compelling narrative about the future is the likely outcome of what will certainly be a contentious and competitive political negotiation. Any general plan is a portfolio of compromises, not an exciting science fiction movie describing an impossibly benignant utopia.

But that’s what is needed right now; a small-town Star Wars epic narrative that inspires, unifies, and animates initiative.

Much closer to the mark, I think, is the idea that a method for collaborating to arrive at a consensus about the city center will be a critical component of the city’s overall economic development strategy. This makes sense, inasmuch as economic developers, by temperament and habit, combine idealism with pragmatism. There are numerous organizations working on growing the economy of Chico and the North State, and all of them are right about something. They seek different paths to the same outcomes; increasing commercial activity, capital formation, wealth creation, and sustainable workforce expansion.

Recently, the City of Chico recruited Martha Wescoat-Andes as Economic Development/Redevelopment Manager. In recent months she’s been gathering ideas and interests and concerns from a wide variety of stakeholders in the local economy, especially the folks who have been the boots on the ground of the economic development effort here for decades. Wescoat-Andes recently presented a summary of her findings to the city council all-day budget hearing, which was refreshing in contrast to other departments’ sobering and often grim portents for the city’s financial state. She advised that the solution to projected budget shortfalls lies in expanding the economy, creating more jobs, and collecting more revenues. She's right.

Accelerating the transformation of the city center into a dynamic commercial corridor must certainly be a critical component of a strategy for growing the economy. So I’m hopeful that the process of planning and executing such a strategy will help to crystallize a common colloquium for how the downtown will fulfill everyone’s expectations.

Continue reading "

Greater Downtown - That Vision Thing

Posted by Alan Chamberlain at 06:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (8)

If you listen to "America The Beautiful" while traveling around the region, it's hard not to think you're soaking in it. In the center of all this splendor is Chico. And in the center of Chico, downtown.

Framed by Bidwell Park, Bidwell Mansion, Chico State and the south campus neighborhoods, anchored by the plaza and city offices, and distinguished by historic architecture, the central commercial core is the economic hub and cultural commons of Chico, and the crossroads of four active traffic corridors. The health and vitality of the region is reflected in the health of downtown Chico.

This has not always been a favorable indicator. Downtown has had its problems, like most city centers over the past few decades. It has suffered setbacks inflicted by sprawl and mall. But on the whole, our commercial center has been sustained by a nearby campus population, city and county offices, and a determined merchant community.

Over the past decade, it has undergone convulsive transformation. Ten years ago, there were two theaters showing first run films. The central square was shaded by an ancient canopy, and modestly furnished with a gazebo and benches. Halloween was a glorious street festival enjoyed safely if spiritedly by families, students, and visitors alike. And you could fire a cannon down Main Street at high noon on any given weekday in July with little risk of hitting anyone. Traffic congestion was as rare as parking was abundant.

Of course, ten years ago, Chico had half the population, you could buy a house for less than $100,000, and strangers still smiled and exchanged greetings on the street. Times have changed, Chico has grown, and downtown bustles with commercial – and criminal – activity.

There have always been petty pot dealers in the plaza. But recently hypodermic needles were found in Children’s Playground. There have always been homeless folks needing support, but today there is a cohort of career panhandlers blocking sidewalks, menacing shoppers, and asserting a Constitutional right to be a pest. Where once was thriving hospitality shared by students, townies, families and visitors, downtown after dark has become a haven for mean drunks, violent predators, and criminal enterprises.

Do these portents reflect the values and priorities of the larger community and the agricultural region surrounding it? Is this the downtown Chico wants? Or is it the downtown Chico deserves?

Of course, downtown has also improved in many ways. Many dilapidated buildings have been renovated. The plaza, while transformed into a completely different venue than before, will be a durable commons for civic events. The problems of traffic congestion and parking, while complex, indicate impressive growth in economic development.

Still, the tolerance of malignant conduct, the decreasing public safety at all hours but especially at night, and the acceptance of a nihilistic subculture belligerently confounding neighborliness presages a deterioration in the health of downtown, and the community as a whole.

There was a time when the Chico Police Department was headquartered in the city center. While this is no longer logistically advantageous, the relocation of the CPD on Humboldt left a deficit of oversight and enforcement in downtown. As Chico has grown, enforcement resources are stretched thin to cover the city. But downtown has a special significance. The absence of foot patrols, bicycle patrols, and an enabling infrastructure in downtown have led to a sense of safety and immunity for those who would exploit others’ vulnerability.

The people who live and work downtown have taken many steps to incrementally improve the neighborhood; windows that were broken or boarded up now shine from a restored hotel. Shopkeepers clean the sidewalks in front of their stores each morning, after disposing of the discarded cardboard furniture of the chronic beggars. New businesses continue to locate in downtown, and some grow larger.

Where civic spirit has succeeded, policy has failed. Where private investment has been generous, public investment has been parsimonious. Where concerned citizens have formed watch groups, public safety agencies have ignored antisocial behavior.

Much of the success in downtown can be credited to the work of the Downtown Chico Business Association. The Thursday Night Market, the Concert in the Park, the various special events from A Slice of Chico to Treat Street to Christmas Preview and more showcase downtown’s vitality and perpetuate a lively culture of citizen participation. But DCBA’s resources are limited, the scope of its operation constrained, and is frankly competing with commercial interests in other areas of the city. While the success of the DCBA program is impressive, more remains to be done.

The city council is expected to act with vision and perseverance to protect and strengthen the city core. Recent new investment in increased police presence is a welcome initiative, and it is hoped that more resources will be allocated to maximize its effectiveness. New ordinances dealing with panhandling, drug dealing, riding bikes and skateboards on the sidewalk, public nuisance, etc., are not needed. We have plenty of prohibitive legislation; what is needed is consistent, uniform enforcement of existing laws. This is, as with most policy issues, a matter of money. But a government’s first obligation is to protect its citizens. While there exist many other worthwhile programs needing funding, maintaining a baseline level of comfort and convenience in the city’s core is a minimum requirement, not a luxury. The city council received some sobering news at the recent all-day budget workshop. The city is going broke, spending more than it brings in, and the police department needs another $45 million over the next decade to maintain minimum service levels. Whether the money is raised through increased taxes or asset divestment, or saved by cutting other programs, surely a prudent investment in upholding the laws on the books is not too much to ask.

Posted by Alan Chamberlain at 06:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

When my wife and I first visited Chico ten years ago, it was the downtown that we found most charming. I grew up in Columbia, Missouri, a medium-sized college town in a river bottom valley with an agricultural economy. It, like Chico, was sufficiently distant from major urban centers that it was the principal destination for regional residents for commercial, cultural, and social fulfillment. My first impression of Chico is that it was very much like my own hometown.

Coming into the downtown from the Esplanade, our first stop was at Madison Bear Garden (pictured above), which reminded me a lot of a place in my old home town called Ford's Theater. Of course, Chico resembled the Columbia of my youth, which has grown and evolved substantially since I left there in the mid-70’s, and Chico today has changed significantly since I relocated here. But there are some valid parallels between the two communities, and my activism in Chico’s planning discussion is informed by a desire to avoid the mistakes that were made in my birthplace, while hopefully implementing some of the practices that proved successful.

One of the important similarities the two towns share is the proximity of the downtown with the University campus. They are side-by-side, and the presence of the student, faculty and staff populations are an essential feature of downtown life. Both communities have received some notoriety as being “party towns”, and both have struggled with the problems caused by over-served youth. The city halls of both cities are also located in their respective downtowns.

There are differences, as well. Columbia’s downtown is the location of the county seat, police headquarters, and the main firehouse. Chico’s safety services are located elsewhere, and Oroville hosts county administration. These distinctions notwithstanding, the similarities to the town I grew up in were striking when I first came to Chico. So much so, that I noticed some eerie analogs to haunts of my youth.

Duffy’s, for example, was called The Tiger Club when I was an irresponsible youth. Scotty’s was represented by a roadhouse on the outskirts of Columbia that was called “Gladstone’s Manufacturing Company”. As I say, Chico’s Madison Bear Garden is nearly identical to Columbia’s Ford’s Theater, complete with tons of old junk on the walls, excellent burgers, and great drink specials. The venerable rock and roll palace in Columbia had a number of different names, although the most memorable to me was The 18th Amendment, and was very much like LaSalle’s, complete with enclosed courtyard and separate poolroom. As I say, my assimilation to Chico was rapid and effortless.

When I opened my first business in Chico, I had no thought of locating anywhere but the downtown area. I was fortunate that office space was plentiful and cheap. My first location was 42 cents a square foot, and right in the middle of 2nd Street between Main and Broadway, easily the hippest block in the Tri-County area. It was funky, bohemian, and drenched in Chico’s celebrated “slack”. My office was surrounded by art studios, and there were plenty of food and beverage operators close to hand. Parking was abundant and just ridiculously cheap compared with the Bay Area, whence I’d migrated. Parking in downtown San Francisco was about $6 an hour in 1998; in Chico an overtime parking ticket was only $7. I also found a rental parking space a couple blocks away for $25. Between its affordability and a vibrant cultural scene, downtown was the unbeatable choice for locating my recording studio.

I was also delighted with the many programs and special events that took place downtown; both the Saturday and Thursday markets, the concerts in the plaza, the parades, car shows, sidewalk sales, and other “street fair” occasions like Taste of Chico and Slice of Chico. It just seemed to me that the downtown was the beating heart of the whole community, and the surrounding region.

There remains a great deal of untapped potential for this area, however. Retail and restaurant operators, especially, complain about conditions which hurt their businesses. The presence of so many vagrants, the shabby state of the sidewalks, the residue of the party scene, and the lack of consideration shown by skateboarders and cyclists on the sidewalks discourages many patrons from visiting downtown. Parking has become significantly less available, and traffic congestion has increased exponentially, such that many people prefer not to come downtown at all. Motorists trying to traverse the central corridor on their way elsewhere, frustrated by traffic, race through town endangering pedestrians. All of these conditions have led to a situation where downtown businesses are patronized primarily by other downtown business owners and their employees. There’s a critical absence of patron churn, as more and more customers choose to patronize the other nine commercial corridors in Chico.

There’s also a surfeit of empty space in the core of the city. In the six-square block area bounded by Salem, Wall, First and Third Streets, more than 60,000 square feet of commercial space is untenanted. This is a grim portent; empty space attracts nuisance, and deterioration of a central business district can be rapid as more “missing teeth” appear in its face. Chico’s downtown is at a critical inflection point. It could tip either way; towards increased health and vitality, or towards disorder and decay.

The time has come for people who have a stake in the downtown to get involved in a civic deliberation about its future. The DCBA has done a great deal, of course, but the scope of its portfolio is narrow (by ordinance, it is restricted as to what it can and cannot do), and its resources are constrained. Its geographic boundaries are as limited as its mission is explicitly business-centric. There is more to a successful downtown than shopping and dining. In order for downtown Chico to fulfill its promise, more than business interests must be involved.

More on Friday.

Posted by Alan Chamberlain at 10:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

When famous urban planner Stefano Polyzoides spoke recently at Laxson Auditorium, he said that Chico's "most underutilized asset is the downtown." Everyone seems to agree that Chico's central business district is great. But as Polyzoides points out, it could be greater.

In the coming weeks, I will be exploring ideas for improving and sustaining Chico’s downtown. I’ve been engaged in a number of discussions with downtown businesses, city staff and elected officials, residents and landlords, and other stakeholders in the central business district.

I should disclaim at the outset that I sit on the Downtown Chico Business Association Board of Directors, and serve on its Executive Committee. That said, the purpose of this series of blog entries is not exclusively interested in strictly commercial dynamics, although they will certainly play a part.

I previously discussed the need for public involvement and private investment in the city center in a blog last October. I wrote then that "Chico’s commercial, cultural, and historical center integrates social, civic, and economic domains to connect commerce, the academy, and city government with the residents of the city and region. Unlike other commercial districts, downtown offers an inclusive environment to serve as a public commons." I believe that this is the best, highest purpose for any downtown, and Chico is fortunate that its central core has served so well in this capacity.

As this series continues, I will be sharing best practices from other successful downtowns, innovative ideas contributed by other folks I've met with locally, and a few humble suggestions from Modesty Forbids. Please feel free to add your own comments if you are so inspired.

Posted by Alan Chamberlain at 08:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Teacher: Johnny, describe the people of New York City.

Johnny: The people of New York are really stupid.

Teacher: Why do you say that?

Johnny: It says right in the textbook "the population of New York is very dense."

Today, that term has taken a new meaning, although it still amounts to tricking people into doing something they would not otherwise do. Similarly, the phrase "smart growth" is starting to morph into a fairly meaningless code, which is unfortunate, since it was, at one time, a term of art for a specific set of strategies for urban planning.

Instead is has become something of a slogan for what properly would be termed "no growth". The truth is that a lot of development in and around Chico has been exemplary of smart growth principles. Doe Mill is the poster child for smart growth strategies, although the development has been principally characterized as "New Urbanism", which movement has its own charter and design philosophy, incorporating elements of the Smart Growth principles with architectural and design imperatives. This is also described as "Traditional Neighborhood Development", which has its own portfolio of planning principles.

The General Plan largely dictates that development observe many of the conventions of the Smart Growth movement, so it's puzzling to me to hear candidates promoting it as something new, as a change in practice. What they are really talking about is not Smart Growth, at least as it is defined by the leaders of the movement. Instead, what they seem to mean is to use policy to compel changes in the way people live.

Yogi Berra famously observed that if people don't want to go to the ball game, you can't stop them. Prohibitive policy intended to force people onto public transit, e.g, results not in increased ridership, but rather with motorists choosing alternative destinations where motoring is better supported. The suggestion that suppressing the development of parking resources in downtown will cause more people to take the bus or ride their bikes results in more people choosing to patronize other commercial centers that provide ample parking. This isn't "smart growth" by any definition; it's a recipe for a deteriorating city center.

Smart Growth states, as a core principle, to "Provide a Variety of Transportation Choices", to

implement new approaches to transportation planning, such as better coordinating land use and transportation; increasing the availability of high quality transit service; creating redundancy, resiliency and connectivity within their road networks; and ensuring connectivity between pedestrian, bike, transit, and road facilities. In short, they are coupling a multi-modal approach to transportation with supportive development patterns, to create a variety of transportation options.

The truth is that Chico is as fully invested in public transit as it can be, given current funding limitations. The network of bike lanes and other resources for cyclists is extensive, and has been favorably recognized by the cycling press. More can be done, and should be done, to support those who choose self-propelled transportation, but refusing to provide parking is not the way to do it. Indeed, parking structures on the periphery of the downtown would promote a "park once" behavior, as contrasted to how many people behave now, which is to park serially, driving from one destination in downtown to another, and so forth. The "park once" approach results in people walking more, and a net reduction in traffic congestion. This is not "social engineering"; it's civil engineering.

If we consider downtown Chico to be a microcosm of the large community and region, we should consider carefully how it is to grow. Remaining as it is, like a fly in amber, is not an option. It must either grow, or stagnate. If it is to grow, then much can be learned by studying Smart Growth and the suite of best practices that have emerged from this discipline, rather than using it as a slogan for No-Growth policies.

Posted by Alan Chamberlain at 06:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In this perfervid election season, attention has been scant for Councilor Andy Holcombe's proposal to establish an al fresco refuge for the homeless on city property. Most folks I know who would likely be opposed to establishing a permanent base camp for derelicts tend to laugh off the suggestion as absurd. Those who would tend to favor it are more focused on the upcoming city council campaign than getting behind the campground idea.

And yet it may well be the single most important issue of the campaign. While we've all been handwringing and armwrestling over the typical issues of growth, spending, safety, and infrastructure, the homeless campground could be the stealth issue that defines the outcome of the election.

If, for example, the incumbents are re-elected, as expected, and the third open seat goes to, say, Mary Flynn, the so-called progressives will retain their majority on the council. Scott Gruendl will term out as Mayor in January, and the council will elect a mayor from among their number. The likely next mayor would be Andy Holcombe. Gruendl could not succeed himself, Flynn would be far too junior, as a rookie councilor, and Ann Schwab has not distinguished her two years on the council by leadership. Indeed, her principal contribution in office has been the degree to which we are all much better informed about the process of managing the city, inasmuch as she asks so many questions of city staff. Holcombe has been well-informed, activist, and effective in pursuing his legislative priorities. If the current majority is sustained, Holcombe is the presumptive favorite for the mayoralty.

Even though he's not running for office this season, his ascendancy to Mayor can be favorably compared to, say, Nancy Pelosi's ascendacy to Speaker of the House, should the majority if the Congress change hands. While he would not represent as radical a shift in ideological direction, he is, nevertheless, as likely to exploit the role in pursuit of his agenda, which is unapologetically, and arguably nobly, centered on the disadvantaged. He's a labor lawyer, after all, and has participated in demonstrations against locally-owned businesses by out-of-town union organizers. Whether you agree with them or not, his biases have never been obscured.

Personally, I like Andy. I think he's smart, committed, and increasingly influential. As mayor, with a majority made up of Gruendl, Schwab, and Flynn, he could be very effective in achieving his policy goals, including the establishment of a permanent homeless encampment in Chico. This would be an environmental disaster of profound proportions.

It may be useful to contrast Holcombe's proposal with the program Mayor Gavin Newsom has implemented in San Francisco. The scope of the problem in the Bay Area is substantially greater than here, so it is worth noting that his "Care Not Cash" program has resulted in a signifiant reduction in homelessness on San Francisco's streets. The San Francisco Chronicle has published two parts of a three-part analysis of this program, and the outcomes are largely encouraging.

There are indeed fewer homeless people on the street today than there could be -- at least 4,200 fewer, according to city data on people who have left the general assistance rolls, accepted bus tickets out of town, or moved into addiction recovery centers or one of the city's growing number of supportive housing complexes...According to the most recent street count, more than 6,200 people are homeless on any given night, compared with more than 8,600 in a count in 2002.

The "Care Not Cash" program operates on three fundamental principles:

Chico has made great progress in furnishing group shelters, but they are not suitable for many types of clients. Those with behavioral disorders are not able to participate in either the Torres or Jesus Center programs. Rather than establishing a permanent public nuisance, mightn't it be more cost-effective to simply contract with local motels to take these clients in while they seek recovery and rehabilitation services?

Currently, the Chico Police Department seems to be functionally vision-impaired when it comes to the vagrants loitering on downtown streets, unless a specific complaint is lodged. Rarely are aggressive panhandlers reported, since they vanish before the police can arrive. As a consequence, downtown patrons are subjected to verbal abuse and confrontational encounters without remedy. There are any number of causes of downtown's vacancy rate, but this problem must rank very highly on that list. Perhaps if the CPD were more proactive in intervening with the derelict population, directing them to social services resources, some of the chronic abusers of downtown's hospitality might find less inconvenient surroundings elsewhere.

Finally, it must be recognized that many of the "regulars" in the panhandler ranks are serial beggars. We see them around for a few weeks or months, then they disappear for awhile, only to return in the future. These folks cycle in and out of communities that are relatively tolerant, such as Santa Cruz, Arcata, Berkeley's Telegraph Avenue, etc. The reason they wash up here (not literally of course; although that would be an improvement), is because those locations "crack down" from time to time. The problem with Chico is that it never cracks down. If we were to create a city-owned campground, we would be inundated with refugees from less congenial locations as they perform periodic street-cleaning operations. If Chico were to supply these folks with one-way bus tickets out of town in exchange for a promise never to return, this revolving door might be effectively closed.

Condider this when you go to the polls next week. A vote for the self-described progressive field is a vote for Andy Holcombe for mayor, and a referendum on a refugee camp on our outskirts. Perhaps this is what they have in mind for Bidwell Ranch, although I suspect they would simply return Edgar Slough to its former glory as a homeland for the homeless.

Posted by Alan Chamberlain at 07:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

This evening, Wednesday, October 25th, the Downtown Parking and Access Coalition is hosting a public forum to discuss the recommendations of the planning charrette the city conducted last May.

Why should anyone but downtown merchants care about downtown? After all, there are 6000+ business licenses in Chico, and less than 500 are located in the 50 square blocks that currently constitute the city center. With 9 other commercial corridors in Chico, does it really mater whether or not downtown thrives, or even survives?

I believe it matters a great deal, and not just because my office is located downtown. Chico’s commercial, cultural, and historical center integrates social, civic, and economic domains to connect commerce, the academy, and city government with the residents of the city and region. Unlike other commercial districts, downtown offers an inclusive environment to serve as a public commons, with numerous events to bring people together.

And while most commerical districts tend to obstruct and divide residential neighborhoods, downtown serves many residents in and around the district. In addition, a great many social services agencies and non-profits have their offices and operations in downtown, including the Butte Economic Council, Chico Conservation Voters, the Peace and Justice Center, the Hooker Oak Alliance, the Chico Economic Planning Corporation, the Chamber of Commerce and of course the Downtown Chico Business Association, among others.

With the University and the student community to the west of us, Bidwell Mansion to the north, and Bidwell Park to the east, downtown Chico is surrounded by historic landmarks. With the city offices located downtown, we have a large and growing population of city staff working here. The city plaza, whether you like the recent improvements or not, is the community's family room. All of these elements combine to create a uniquely dynamic cultural, social, and commercial center for Chico, Butte County, and the entire region.

We must work together to preserve and enhance the health of our city center. For far too long, the civic deliberation bas been characterized by polarization and division. It is time for all stakeholders -- city workers, University students, faculty, and staff, the arts community, the social services networks, and commercial interests -- to collaborate to define and achieve a sustainable vision for downtown.

Downtown is in trouble. The vacancy rate is disturbing, and growing. There are too many "missing teeth" at street level, and there is a glut of empty office space on upper stories. There is no incentive to develop and build new buildings in downtown when so much commercial space remains unleased. Street crime is increasing, and the derelicts cluttering every street corner are an obnoxious nuisance. The renovations to Tweaker's Triangle (er, Ringel Park) notwithstanding, Children's Playground has become a haven for drug dealers and users. These are the symptoms of decay, and we ignore them at our peril.

While the focus of tonight's meeting is on circulation and parking, it is more than simply a rehash of the charrette. It is a process for deciding, as a community, what we want our downtown to be. Because of a lack of leadership in city government, and a reliance on outside consultants to advise our policy makers on fashionable planning trends, stakeholders are at risk of becoming the guinea pigs in a social engineering experiment. This forum is an opportunity for ordinary citizens to step up and create a sustainable vision for the future of our downtown, and our community as a whole. Come to city council chambers at 6 PM, and find out how you can help.

Posted by Alan Chamberlain at 07:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

With the imminent closing of the Tower Records store, the vacancy rate in downtown is going to take another uptick. Right now, in a six-square-block area bounded by First, Third, Salem, and Wall Streets, there is about 60,000 square feet of space currently vacant or underutilized.

According to the city parking requirements code, if that space were leased at its most recent or most likely projected use, 300 parking spaces would be needed, which tends to help explain why there isn't more demand for that space.

Every time I encourage a business to locate in downtown, the first, and I mean the very first question is "where are my people going to park?" Think about it, a small, office-based business (a legal office, say, or bookkeeping, web services, graphic design, etc.) with 10 employees needs 80 hours worth of parking spaces every business day.

One of the frequent comments I hear from people who oppose investment in new parking facilities is "I never have any trouble finding a place to park downtown!" This may be true; even at 85% saturation, that still leaves a space or two every block. Unfortunately, that doesn't really address the concern of the business operator whose staff need to park all day. There are only so many 10-hour spaces available in the area, and even if you have a city parking permit (the so-called "hunting license"), if you aren't parked by 10AM, you will likely do without, or feed a two-hour meter (illegal, but unenforced).

But even that is academic; the city lot at Second and Wall (Parking Lot #1) only has 173 spaces, and 10% of them are leased on a monthly basis, so it offers no meaningful relief for 300 additional autos per day.

This is not about new development. Currently, anyone developing a new building in downtown must either provide the required parking as part of the plan, or pay the city a $16,000 in-lieu fee. But if one of these existing empty spaces is leased, provision of new parking capacity is not required.

And that's why downtown occupancy is stagnant. It's a chicken-egg thing; employers will not locate operations in downtown until there's sufficient parking, and the city doesn't invest in new facilities because there's not enough demand. Meanwhile, there's a prime piece of dirt at First and Main, the gateway to downtown, that could support 50,000 square feet of new retail, commercial, office and residential space, but who's going to build something like that when there's 60,000 feet sitting empty all around it?

Wishful thinking to the contrary notwithstanding, abundant parking must precede occupancy. If downtown Chico is to compete with the malls and other commercial corridors, the city must invest in new infrastructure.

Posted by Alan Chamberlain at 10:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

The October 11 edition of the E-R featured an editorial praising the city council for denying developer Steve Schuster's proposed amendment to the General Plan. This decision, while perhaps procedurally defensible, is nevertheless a disaster of uncoordinated planning. True, Schuster would have probably saved himself a lot of time, trouble, and money had he pursued his amendment before getting so far down the path, but that's not really how things work, at least not in Chico.

The thing that many people fail to grasp, the editorial board of the E-R included, is the confused coordination between politically-motivated council members, policy-motivated city staff, and market-motivated investors. The E-R makes it sound as though Schuster had no reasonable expectation of an approval for a rezone, but in fact these things happen all the time. Developers are advised by the Planning Department to seek rezoning, and the current council majority's prediliction for higher density projects made the recommendation of a rezoning application perfectly reasonable. The city council did not suddenly develop common sense regarding higher density progams adjacent to lower-density existing neighborhoods; they were mau-maued by the neighbors (not entirely without justification) and they caved to public pressure.

The editorial's observation - "the project isn't hard to fix. Take 42 homes out of the plan, sell the homes for a bit more because they have larger lots, and the problem is solved" - betrays an astonishing lack of understanding about the process that produced this result.

Continue reading "Support Your Local Developer" »

Posted by Alan Chamberlain at 12:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)