This is the first in a series of architectural reviews done from the perspective of the pedestrian at street level. Good street wall architecture is one of the four important elements in creating Great Streets, and as such can either help bring vibrancy and vitality to a street, or make it unpleasant. As William H. Whyte said, “It’s hard to create a space that will not attract people; what is remarkable is how often this has been accomplished.”

Vons Mission Hills

Let’s be frank. Instead of having a store designed and built for the urban setting of Mission Hills, Mission Hills got the same Vons store one would find in Poway, Pasadena, or Escondido. Vons/Safeway simply took their suburban model and plopped it on top of a parking garage in Mission Hills. The result – a suburban sensibility and architecture that prioritizes cars over people, and which kills any possibility of having an active, vibrant, neighborhood street scene.

Let’s be fair.  Vons/Safeway worked closely with the Mission Hills community, for which they are to be commended. As a result, the designed evolved over time to incorporate community concerns and interests. Renderings of the first design prove that the final design was a dramatic improvement. Credit must be given to the designers for breaking up the facade massing, adding visual interest, and for creating a well defined street wall. Even so, the overall style borders on Generica (meaning you can find the same generic style across America).

Vons Mission Hills

Pasadena Vons Center

However, the good points still do not compensate for the fact that ground floor is a parking lot. The possibility for an interesting, active, and vibrant street scene is now non-existent. Yes, Von’s dressed up the parking lot with colorful potted plants and whimsical ironwork, which makes walking by it a little more interesting. (Watch out for the utility boxes in the middle of the sidewalk!!)  However, these distractions only seem to reinforce that the street level was so flawed that it had to be fixed. You can put lipstick on a pig, but …

What could have an URBAN Vons looked like instead?  Vons is proud that this store features a Starbucks, a pharmacy, and several specialty departments. What if the Starbucks was at the street level with a sidewalk cafe?  What if the pharmacy, the deli and the flower shop each had its own street level storefront and entrance – yet still with access to the main store? What if Von’s special departments were highlighted at the street level, giving life to the street and the possibility for shoppers to walk by, stop in, and buy a cup of coffee, a sandwich, or a bouquet of flowers? That design probably would have cost more up front, but as currently designed the effort one must exert to make a simple purchase on the second floor is a deterrent to impulse buying, and surely must hurt overall sales in the long run.

While the the new Vons Mission Hills does not qualify for a rating of “citycide”**, it appears that the architect(s) knew that the Mission Hills urban environment should be treated differently, (as evidenced by some good design elements), yet still proceeded to use the suburban store model, place it on top of a parking lot, and try to “fix” the street level with bandaids. Because it appears that they knew better but tried to cover it up; because they used a suburban sensibility in an urban setting; because the possibility of an active, interesting neighborhood street scene has been lost; and because the generica style of architectural does not relate to Mission Hills or help create a sense of Place, the Vons Mission Hills borders on architectural negligence and receives a rating of One Person** from this reviewer.

-Walter Chambers, GSSD 

** Ratings are based on how well the architecture attracts, connects, and keeps people, and  whether it adds value. Ratings range from 0-5 people. Five people is the top rating indicating that a building brings the possibility of an active, vibrant, and vital street life. Zero people is the lowest rating indicating “citycide” – the ability to kill street life.

Vital and Vibrant

Citycide

This article about the South Bay Union School District banning children from riding bikes to school because it was too dangerous really caught my eye (and ire) this morning.  After a few minutes, I speculated that perhaps it was a school district just being overly paranoid about liability and law suits.  So I looked up the neighborhood on Google Earth.

Have a look for yourself. An elementary school is marked on the photo at 1915 Coronado Ave. Across 19th Street is a park. Across Coronado Ave is another elementary school (big building with blue roof). Catty-corner to the school is a large shopping center with grocery store and parking lot.

This area is clearly designed for cars, not people. Coronado Avenue is a large 4-6 lanes street – either a major collector street or an arterial. The traffic speeds and volumes are probably high, thanks to the suburban cul-de-sac design of the area. The same is true of 19th Street.

About those cul-de-sacs; You can see that the schools are surrounded by residential neighborhoods, yet not a single one of the (low speed, low volume) residential streets connect to the school site. To get to the school, one must drive from cul-de-sac to collector street, to main collector street, and finally to the major collector/arterial – on which the schools are located. No wonder the School District thinks it’s dangerous!

The article and community seems to think it is the School Districts responsibility to resolve the situation. But with streets designed so dangerously, and land use policy that makes the built environment dangerous to kids and friendly only to cars – every city engineer, planner, developer, and politician should be ashamed and must be involved in solving this mess.

Welcome to Charles Marohn and Justin Burslie of StrongTowns.org.  This evening, Charles will be presenting the StrongTowns “Curbside Chat” to a group of approximately 35 Planners, Developers, Architects, Urbanists, Community members and Government officials.  It should be good. Check back here tomorrow for a complete write-up on the event.

Give Charles and Justin a warm San Diego welcome.

Last month, GSSD asked each of the 4 main candidates for Mayor of San Diego about their plan and vision for improving San Diego’s public realm.  As of this writing, only Nathan Fletcher has published such a plan. His plan includes complete streets, better bicycle infrastructure, a bike share program, and ciclavia. A cyclist himself, Fletcher has caught the attention of livable streets advocates in San Diego. Fletcher’s campaign had been working on the plan prior to the request from GSSD and was not in response to it.

Today, Great Streets San Diego sent the three candidates who have not responded yet the following e-mail. 

“Dear Candidate ________,

Last month, Great Streets San Diego sent a hard copy letter to the (your campaign) office asking about your plan for improving San Diego’s public realm. This is an issue that GSSD members and followers are very interested in. The question I am hoping that you will answer for us is this:

As Mayor, what is your Plan to improve the public realm and make San Diego’s streets, America’s Finest Streets? Please include possible items such as improving walkability and the pedestrian experience, bicycle infrastructure, bike share system, traffic calming, complete streets, and creating more livable neighborhoods. What is your vision, and how would you carry it out?

San Diego has fallen behind other cities when it comes to improving the public realm and creating livable neighborhoods. Oklahoma City, New York City, Minneapolis, Portland, Chicago, Austin, all have made great progress under the direction of their visionary mayors. Many of us in San Diego are wondering what your vision is and how would you carry it out?

Thank you very much for your consideration.”

GSSD will keep you informed of any response from the candidates’ campaigns. In the meantime, please take the time to e-mail them yourself and ask, “What is your Plan and Vision?”

-Walter Chambers

This 1954 propaganda film from GM, “Give Yourself the Green Light”, tells America that the only way to a golden future is to build more roads, and add more parking. “Your traffic engineers know the way.” It glorifies and glamorizes the construction of highways and freeways through cities and towns, showing bull dozers demolishing buildings and cutting block wide swaths through neighborhoods. 

Ironically, it shows scenes of still vibrant downtowns, filled with pedestrians, and of children walking to school – something all those new roads and parking lots would eventually end up destroying. You will also notice the street cars, still in existence, with freeways being constructed overhead. 

GM held a contest with a $25,000 award (a big prize in 1954) to the person with the best ideas of how to expand and improve our highways. The winner (and I’m not kidding) – Robert Moses. Yes, the Robert Moses of New York and of Jane Jacobs’ ire. His acceptance speech is midway through the 20 minute film. 

Hat tip to The Atlantic Cities which posted the first half of the film with a nice synopsis and comment.

Be happy that today even the most avid road advocates no longer sees the world the way they did in the 1950′s. Be mortified at the blatant propaganda from a company (GM) most likely to benefit from the construction of more roads and the destruction of alternative modes of travel. Most of all, enjoy the film, and know that by from our mistakes we can do better now.

Today, April 4th is National Walking Day.  As you, a reader of GSSD, know it takes more than just a sidewalk and a crosswalk to make a good pedestrian environment. Better Cities and Towns has a good post today, “Ten Steps To Creating Complete Streets” that talks about some of the elements of good street design.

Imagine … you are the new mayor of San Diego. What would you say to your staff of Planners, Engineers, Public Safety, Streets, and Economic Development departments?

Charles Marohn of StrongTowns has put his 3 part blog post, “From The Mayor’s Office” into a a single podcast. He acts as a fictional mayor and talks to each of his departments. As usual, it sounds radical, but is plain old common sense. Creating value, financially and socially, is the way to build strong cities and towns. Listen here: StrongTowns podcast or read the blog posts here: From The Mayor’s Office.

San Diego is currently in process of electing a new Mayor. Wouldn’t you want this fictional mayor to be our new real mayor?

Great Streets San Diego is very excited about co-sponsoring Charles Marohn of StrongTowns.org for his “Curbside Chat”. GSSD links to Mr. Marohn’s blog posts, and references the StrongTowns approach often. No one since Jane Jacbos has someone spoken “truth to power” in the way Marohn does.

Provocative, yet well reasoned and logical, the StrongTowns ideas help us understand why San Diego can no longer continue to develop the built environment using the same methods and patterns we have over the past 60 years.

GSSD joins the Hillcrest Business Association, Placemakers, and URB.EN in sponsoring the event. 

Join us for an interesting and provocative discussion about San Diego’s future, urban design, infrastructure, and financial solvency. Visit the Facebook Page for details about time, place, and how to RSVP.

You must RSVP to attend this event. Space is limited so RSVP now. See you there!

I grew up in a small town of 18,000 in Indiana. It was a typical midwestern town built before WW-II. It had a regular street grid pattern, the center of which was the intersection of Main Street and Broad Street downtown. That intersection also happened to be the location of the majestic Courthouse. Before I was born, the town had an “Interurban” rail line connecting it to other neighboring towns.

I walked to school from 1st grade to 9th grade. I suppose I was too “cool” to walk to high school, but did it on occasion anyway. It was certainly possible. My Dad worked “downtown” and would walk to work on occasion. He almost always came home for lunch. My friends and I road bikes everywhere, and could easily get to any store, or visit any relative. My aunt had a garden with a maze of brick paths that served as the best imaginary streets for bikes.

Then the box-in-a-parking-lot development began along Road 3. Road 3 was the State Highway that used to define the boundary edge of the town. It is no longer surrounded by farmland. Big box stores, fast food restaurants and parking lots loosely define it’s edges now.

Some where between WWII and 1990 we forgot how to build towns like my hometown. In fact, we so throughly forgot that a whole new disciple, philosophy and ideology had to be re-constructed. Now we talk of “new urbanism” and “smart growth”, “density”, and “walkability scores”. 

I suppose if my hometown were to be built today, it would be considered TOD – transit oriented development (Interurban Rail). Planners and developers would talk about smart growth, density, and walkability.  Imagine you can actually walk to school and to work! But all this fancy new (and now politically charged) lingo only masks one thing – this is the way cities and towns used to be built. It didn’t take a “smart growth” planner to figure it all out. The automobile somehow erased our collective memories.

This article from The Atlantic Cities talks about how politically charged the words “smart growth”, “density”, “TOD”, etc. have become. However, when we really think about it, most of us just want to live in the world that I grew up in. We are tired of our lives being dominated by cars, and our streets lined with parking lots and ugly architecture. Call it what you want — just give us back cities that are designed for people first.