Jeff Speck and New Urbanism: "Dangerous to People's Freedom"?
Today I’ve got the story on Jeff Speck’s final report on how to make downtown Oklahoma City more friendly to pedestrians. I’m always reminded of how lucky I am to have a great group of readers here at www.okccentral.com when I read comments like this:
Oh boy, new urbanism. People need to watch out for this stuff, it’s great and dandy on the outside and reduces the human “footprint” but it could be dangerous to people’s freedom. I hope the government doesn’t get directly involved with these future plans. I hope the best for OKC and it’s downtown, it’s definitely the pioneer of Oklahoma.
Danny, Tulsa – Jun 21, 2009 at 11:39 am
“Dangerous to people’s freedoms.” Danny, what in the world are you talking about? The New Urbanism approach advocated by Speck and others encourages cities to give people greater freedom via mixed-use zoning (it’s ok to have housing, shops and offices in the same building) and allows commercial construction without a required number of parking spaces.
Speck’s report urges the city to “allow” people to park on the streets. It urges the city to create spaces that will “allow” people to actually walk or ride bicycles from place to place, instead of being restricted to traveling by car. The plan also would “allow” people to get around by car as they do today, but without having to navigate confusing one-way streets.
This isn’t a Republican-Democrat debate – it’s a question of whether or not we want our downtown to be a community again.
Thank you for joining our conversation on OKC Central. We encourage your discussion but ask that you stay within the bounds of our commenting and posting policy.
Comments
“new urbanism: dangerous for people’s freedom” is what happens when Tulsa opines on OKC. Why am I not surprised that the person was from Tulsa?
Regarding the boulevard: why does a street that has NEVER been there before, all of a sudden demand six lanes? Where has that demand been until now? Better question: Why is it assumed that the new boulevard must maintain the old I-40 connections to the new I-40? (Only because they’re needed for funneling traffic during the transition?) Are those on-off connectors being kept only because it’s cheaper than having to remove them? Is this forcing the design into something it shouldn’t be? Why is it written that the ENTIRE old I-40 must be converted to boulevard rather than just reasonable portions?
Hopefully these questions have already been answered…
Yeah, Danny is from Tulsa so he must be confused. Doug, why do you think Jeff Speck is living in a pipe dream. He’s hired as a consultant, because our city has been marketed around the automobile for so long, most don’t know any better.
I think we need some clarification on the purpose/benefit of having a boulevard. There seems to be an implicit expectation that “major league cities” must have a boulevard…but I still don’t know what that will actually do for us.
I would hope that such an avenue would encourage the development of mixed-use property…but you can’t have that be a success without creating a pedestrian-friendly boulevard…wide sidewalks, lots of street-level retail, trees, parallel/angled parking, slow speed limit.
A Champs-Ulysses, as mentioned in Steve’s last article, is a great example to follow, except I haven’t heard any city leaders couch it in such terms.
The Champs-Ulysses has a history and a reason for being. The Eastern segment of our boulevard has potential for excellence, but the Western end is… the back end of a bad industrial warehouse zone. Are we trying to shoehorn the ideal of something nice into the reality of dog stink?
I agree with Doug L’s commentary. But, don’t get me wrong, I’m all for making our city more pedestrian-friendly. In regards to the “dangerous” comment, I was told by a coworker about 3 weeks ago, when we talking about the subject of OKC downtown progress, that “new urbanism” is indeed a “code phrase” to make it easier for the government to “round up” and “control the populace”. Needless to say, I was flabbergasted and more than a little disturbed to hear such paranoia from my colleague–a very well-educated professional over the age of 50. So, apparently, for some out there, this phrase is associated with some sort of “red scare” for lack of a better term. It’s exasperating I think.
Steve, I enjoyed reading your article in today’s paper, and I appreciated the give and take of how you presented it. All things considered, I’m kinda wondering if Jeff Speck is in touch with the reality that exists. Case in point is the fashioning of the boulevard which (hopefully) will replace I-40. The comments you reported from the city’s perspective seemed rational and realistic to me … which makes me wonder of Mr. Speck is sort of a pipe-dreamer. On the other hand, I do understand that his objective was quite insular … best of all possible worlds type of thing. But, his views at least on the boulevard didn’t strike me a being much rooted in realism. These are just off-the-top-of-my head remarks, and maybe I’m wrong.