“…get on the sidewalk!”

Anyone who grew up in the suburbs or a small town knows what it’s like to walk down the middle of the street. It’s pretty common. The streets are quiet – only occasionally will a car come by. And the sidewalks are often in bad repair, and typically too narrow for two people to walk comfortably side by side. The middle of the street has space, sun, and a sense of openness.

Canfield Dr, Ferguson, MO where Michael Brown was shot and killed.

That’s what Michael Brown and his friend were doing on August 9th, 2014 on a quiet, residential suburban street just minutes from his friend’s house, when a police car just happened by.

But according to the law they were jaywalking. Streets are for cars only, even quiet suburban residential streets. So when a police car just happened to come down the street, the police stopped and told them to get off the street and onto the sidewalk. The boys weren’t blocking traffic or endangering any life. But they were breaking the law by “jaywalking”.

Michael Brown apparently said out-loud to the officer what I, too, would have said (but under my breath) -  “Fuck off” – and kept walking. The rest of this sad, tragic story is still playing out…

Walter Chambers

Posted in Updates | Leave a comment

SANDAG Confirms: It’s University Ave

In a memo to the Hillcrest Community Collaborative, SANDAG has made the definitive case against Washington Street and for University Avenue as the alignment for the Uptown Regional Bike Corridor project. 

The Hillcrest Community Collaborative is a collaborative of Hillcrest organizations, residents, and business owners that supports the “Transform Hillcrest” proposal for the Hillcrest portion of the Uptown Regional Bike Corridor. You can read about “Transform Hillcrest” in this GSSD post.

However, in a move that surprised nearly everyone in the community, because it was counter to Transform Hillcrest, Ben Nichols, director of the Hillcrest Business Association, made a last minute push for a Washington Street alignment, prompting the memo response from SANDAG. The memo should extinguish any remaining opposition to the University Avenue alignment.

Walter Chambers

Posted in Updates | Leave a comment

One Paseo, two Paseo, three Paseo, four …

There have many lives and redesigns of One Paseo in Carmel Valley. This time they got it right.

The community was right to express their concerns about One Paseo. Likewise, I stand behind the GSSD post dated 24 May 2013, that expressed concerns, and derided its faux urbanism and greenwashing … but which also called for it to move forward.

The process has worked, One Paseo developers listened, and the design now before the community and before the Planning Commission should be embraced and supported. There should be no question; Great Streets San Diego supports the latest design of One Paseo in Carmel Valley, and strongly supports Alternative “B” cycle track on Del Mar Heights Road.

Why support One Paseo? Consider this striking statement by Charles Marohn from a recent article in The American Conservative, “America’s suburban experiment is a radical, government-led re-engineering of society, one that artificially inverted millennia of accumulated wisdom and practice in building human habitats.” That experiment is rapidly failing.

Where some in Carmel Valley see a “forced march towards densification and ever more constricted planning augurs,”, Marohn sees “the unwinding of our great suburban experiment. As government’s ability to subsidize this artificial pattern of development wanes, a return to more traditional living arrangements is inevitable. For thousands of years, cities have been engines of wealth creation.”

One Paseo is the beginning of the transition back to a traditional way of building our cities and towns. Unfortunately, its developers are still saddled with the left over baggage from our 20th century experiment. Leftover baggage such as the now discredited Level of Service (LOS), parking minimums, and a financing system that favors large developments over incremental change.

Even with this baggage, One Paseo has struggled to provide a development that doesn’t prioritize/celebrate the automobile over of people. This is especially evident in the Alternative “B” cycle track for Del Mar Heights Road. By separating local traffic going to One Paseo, from the “car sewer” road traffic, it begins to tame the street. Alternative “B” provides an improved pedestrian experience, and a safer bicycle facility for the One Paseo side of the street. It’s a beginning of what the rest of Del Mar Heights road could become in the future – a multilane boulevard.

While it is true that One Paseo is still an island among other islands of development, the latest design has sought to connect with the neighboring developments. However, this is a bigger problem that One Paseo has inherited from suborn development patterns, and a problem that Carmel Valley must eventually resolve.

“The real issue is not One Paseo, but Carmel Valley. Connecting the isolated “island” neighborhoods, taming its bloated roads, and finding a way to end its automobile dependency are the issues Carmel Valley must eventually address.  Once that has happened, projects like One Paseo will make more sense and will be much more appreciated.”

One Paseo will provide Carmel Valley with a place it desparately needs. GSSD urges The City of San Diego and the residents of Carmel Valley to support One Paseo with Alternative “B” cycle track.

Walter Chambers

Posted in Updates | 2 Comments

In Case You Have Any Doubt …

SANDAG wants you to know — in case you had ANY doubt — just how much cars are their #1 priority. How? Here’s how they show their car-love through the design of the Mid-City Rapid.

1) First you punish pedestrians by narrowing the sidewalk to make more room for cars.





2) Then you plant palm trees at the sidewalk — you definitely don’t want to provide cool shade or filtered light for pedestrians. 




3) With all that extra room for cars, you create a median and plant the shade trees and ground plants (presumably for cars and buses to enjoy as they whizz by) IN THE FRICK’N MIDDLE OF THE STREET.

Was this designed in 1970? Who in their right mind designs streets like this in 2014? Can SANDAG be sued for malpractice?

(You can’t make this stuff up)

Walter Chambers

Posted in Updates | Leave a comment

The Science of Why Some Cities Succeed

It seems Jane Jacobs had it right way back in 1960. What makes a city successful? What makes a city a center of innovation, economic wealth, productivity, and culture? This article “5 Key Themes Emerging from the “New Science of Cities”, by Michael Mehaffy and City Lab identifies why some cities out-perform others.  Read the article, but here is a brief, synopsis.

1.)  Cities that provide casual, social interactions between people are more successful. 

2.) Cities with higher density and good transportation options are economically and environmentally more sustainable and “green”.

3.) Human scale connectivity in the public realm is extremely important. “… to the extent that the city’s urban fabric is fragmented, car-dependent or otherwise restrictive of casual encounters and spillovers, that city will under-perform—or require an unsustainable injection of resources to compensate.”

4.) Cities are People, and those that adapt to/with human psychology are the most successful. 

5.) Cities are a form of Organized Complexity, and cannot be thought of as planned, stagnant, “works of art”. They need to be organic in their growth.

As GSSD has said before, every planner, architect engineer, designer, and politician involved in the building of city needs to make it their number one priority to maximize casual, incidental social interaction between people. Doing this requires Land Use policies that focuses on good density, Transportation Policies that prioritize getting people out of cars, Urban Design policies that create a human-scaled, vibrant public realm, and Economic Policies that focus on people, instead of large corporations.

Quite frankly, San Diego is under-performing to the extent it fails to do these things.

Walter Chambers

Posted in Updates | Leave a comment

The New Huffman 6-Packs

Lessons Unlearned: Why the Huffman scourge has returned, and how it can be stopped.

Huffman 6-Pack Redux. Street Level blank wall with utility meters greet people walking by.

A new crop of infill apartment and condo buildings are popping up in North Park, Hillcrest, and Mission Hills. Like the nearly universally despised Huffman “6-Packs” from the 1960’s and 70’s, these buildings turn their side to the street, presenting an unfriendly blank wall or a wall filled with gas and electric meters to the street. Forget talking to your neighbor sitting on the front porch. Forget seeing people going in and out the front door. Forget seeing any kind of life, light, or human activity from the street.These new complexes, just like the Huffmans before them, are street-life killers. Nothing less than “Citycide”.

No Front Door. No Front Porch. No sign of life. Only a stark grey wall.

How could this happen again? Didn’t San Diego learn its lesson the first time? Sadly enough, there are no active facade requirements or even recommendations in the Community Plans for residential areas. In fact, the recently released Uptown Community Plan Urban Design Element Draft requires active facades only in commercial areas, but not in residential areas. In 2014, walkable residential neighborhoods should be the Standard for Urban Planning. 

Active Street Facade is important. This building kills street-life.

Walkable neighborhoods start at home, not after you drive to a commercial area. Walkable residential neighborhoods are essential to creating community, encouraging walking, and reducing car trips. 

 If you live in Uptown, North Park, Mission Hills, Golden Hills, South Park, or Mid-City, demand good architecture. Another round of Huffman style multi-unit buildings could kill off what remains of street life in our neighborhoods.


You might like to walk by this building if you are into reading gas meters.

Posted in Updates | 2 Comments

Hillcrest united behind new University Ave. Bike Plan

At one point this past winter, the division and rancor in Hillcrest over the SANDAG Uptown Regional Bike Plan, and especially plans for University Avenue, seemed to be tearing the community apart. Amazingly, however, over the last few weeks, the community has come together and collalesced behind a new proposal by retired architect, planner, and Uptown resident Jim Frost.

The plan, “Transform Hillcrest”, not only has bike advocates excited, but the Uptown Community Parking District (UCPD), the Hillcrest Business Association (HBA), the Hillcrest Town Council (HTC), and Hillcrest CDC (HCDC) have all signaled their support, and have signed on to a request that SANDAG seriously consider the Plan. GSSD also gives the plan high marks for it’s people-centric design that has the potential  to transform Hillcrest.

A View of East University Ave between Vermont and Richmond

Transform Hillcrest is divided into two sections: East University Ave. and Central University Ave. (click on links for .PDFs). The East University proposal removes one travel lane, and places East-West thru traffic on the south side of University and a local access / parking lane on the North side. The proposal increases parking, provides protected bike lanes, accommodates traffic and improves the pedestrian experience. The Central University proposal makes University one-way from 1st Ave to 4th Ave, freeing space for protected bike lanes and parking. 

Central University Ave proposal between 3rd and 4th

The proposal culminates with the previously proposed Pride Plaza at University and Normal, leading to the Normal Street Rambla. These plans have the potential to transform Hillcrest and be a model for neighborhoods throughout San Diego. 

Proposed Plaza at University and Normal

Posted in Updates | 8 Comments

Pedestrian “Improvements”: Safety vs. Friendly

Pedestrian Safety and Pedestrian Friendly are often used interchangeably, as if they were the same thing. They aren’t. Designs that are Pedestrian Safe are not necessarily Pedestrian Friendly. On the other hand, designs that are Pedestrian Friendly are always safe.

Pedestrian Bridge: Safe but not Friendly

The pedestrian bridge is a classic example of safe but not friendly. Engineers designed the pedestrian bridge to keep walkers out of the dangers of the street. They may keep the pedestrian safe, but they force people to go up and out of their way just to cross the street. In reality the pedestrian bridge has nothing to do with safety. To Traffic Engineers, pedestrians are obstacles that impede the free flow of traffic. Getting rid of them on the street, by making them go over the street solves two problems, in their eyes.

Safe? Never friendly.

These blockades (photo right) are ubiquitous in San Diego. Any DOT Engineer will tell you that they are installed for the safety of the pedestrian. The truth is, they are installed to keep automobile traffic flowing freely. Pedestrian safe? Maybe. Pedestrian friendly? Never.

On the other hand, pedestrian friendly designs are by definition also pedestrian safe. They make walking comfortable, easy, interesting, and safe. So while $433,000 crosswalk – something The City touts as being good for pedestrians – makes crossing the street at that intersection more safe, it does nothing to make the pedestrian experience of the street better. Had a stop sign been installed instead, crossing would have been safer, and traffic would have been calmed along the entire street. The remaining $430,000 could have been spent on street trees, protected bike lanes, and traffic calming for true pedestrians improvements.

Beg Buttons: Good for traffic flow, not pedestrians.

The difference stems from the Engineers priorities and point of reference. If traffic and cars are the priority, you may get “safe” pedestrian designs, but the object will be to maintain the efficient flow of traffic. When pedestrians are the priority, you get designs that are safe and good for people.

So next time SANDAG or The City says they are doing “pedestrian improvements”, ask yourself, is this design really focused on cars, or is it really focused on making the pedestrian experience safe, comfortable, and enjoyable. Don’t just settle for Safe. Demand Pedestrian Friendly streets.

Walter Chambers

Posted in Updates | 2 Comments

A New Mobility Plan for a Changed World

The Uptown, North Park, and Golden Hill Community Plans are currently being updated. The Mobility Section of these plans will be especially challenging, because everything has changed since these plans were last written. What has changed?

Growth In a Fix Environment:
In the past our mobility plans were focused on private automobiles. As communities grew, roads were widened and more roads built to accommodate the additional cars.  That cannot happen in these older, streetcar neighborhoods. Why?

1) The street layout has been set for decades.
2) Properties fronting the street are nearly 100% built out.
Unless we start tearing down homes to widen roads or make new streets (not going to happen) these two realities won’t change. Whose homes and businesses are we willing to seize and tear down for wider streets? Who decides?

Hillcrest Streets cannot be widened

Climate Change:
Regardless of one’s position on climate change, the State of California, and The City of San Diego has mandated that we do something about it. That includes reducing car trips and increasing walking, bicycling, and transit. 

SB743: If you haven’t heard of this bill that passed last year, you soon will. It completely changes the way transportation efficiency and transportation’s environmental impact is measure. It changes CEQA, California’s environmental quality law. Cars will no longer be the focus of transportation and environmental planning.

A New Way: Because of the above three reasons, and many more, the Mobility Plans of the updated Community Plans must be very, very different than they have been in the past. 

Uptown 21C: In response, Great Streets San Diego has created a proposal that meets the transportation needs of the 21st Century called Uptown 21C. It’s nothing really new … it’s adapted from policies and plans in Vancouver, Portland, and other progressive cities. And it is working in those cities. Read it for yourself, and let GSSD know what you think. 

 -Walter Chambers
Posted in Updates | Leave a comment

Does Highway Expansion Relieve Congestion?

Apparently not. Yet another study is out showing that widening and building more roads in metropolitan areas does nothing to relieve congestion or reduce delay. This is called “induced traffic”. In other words, if you build it, more cars will come. The result is also an increase in fuel consumption (and one must assume pollution).

DELAY PER CAPITA (Mean Person Hours)


So one must wonder, why is the public continually told that projects that widen and expand highways will reduce congestion? 

Posted in Updates | Leave a comment