Last week local blogger and leadership consultant John Sarvay wrote a guest column about the ongoing charette (that’s a fancy word for workshop) regarding the city’s master plan for downtown. He’s been following up with reports from the field on his blog, Buttermilk & Molasses.
For a rather different take on the subject, check out Save Richmond.
Another skeptic: City lawyer Mike Sarahan, who writes in an e-mail that he would call the event “a ‘charade’ instead of a charette”:
I am so tired of going to planning and “visioning” meetings that are attended and run by white, relatively affluent people saying what’s good for the City. Yesterday about 3.5% of the overall attendance was Black. . . . About 200 people were there and I counted 7 Black people. I asked at one point whether anybody from the planning group or the audience noticed that there was no significant representation from the Black community. That was considered a rhetorical question, I guess, because I did not get a response from anybody.
The amazing thing about this meeting yesterday was that it had no context or constraints. In other words, it had no basis in reality. People dreamed up projects and just wrote them on the board, which in this case was a map of Downtown. By the end of the reports from each small group (you know the routine) you could sum it all in this way: “Build another Disney World; call it the ‘City of the 21st Century’; and send the bill to the City.“
If this was all just a waste of time anyway, I wouldn’t worry about it. There are plenty of government meetings and public input process that are wastes of time. The thing that is so bad here, though, is that some points talked about might be considered or written up as “consensus” points from the public. How do you have a “consensus” point from the public when most of the affected public wasn’t there and never heard about it in the first place.
Three very different perspectives from three different sources—all of whom, obviously, care passionately about the city and want it to thrive. The fact that all of them mean well doesn’t make all of them right on all points. For that matter, meaning well doesn’t make any of them right on any point.* But by the same token, the fact that one or more of them might not be right on every detail doesn’t mean they don’t mean well, either.
___________
* Is meaning well entirely independent of being correct about something? Perhaps it depends on the issue. People who mean well can inflict terrible harm, sometimes intentionally (see “Cultural Revolution”), sometimes not (see “culture of dependency”). But is malice more likely to produce an inaccurate interpretation of events than false hope or utopian ambition? Beats me—just wondering aloud. . .
Reader Comments:
Not everyone wants to live in the Richmond of the 1950’s, either.
Tell you what, Mr. Smith. I’ll write what I want and you can just deal with it. OK?
So far, no one but you and Bart has had any problems understanding exactly where I’m coming from.
Excuse me but I have to go order a double latte and listen to some grunge now.
I don’t think it’s really fair to blame “the media” for not getting the word out. I read about it in the RTD but the term “charette” seemed silly to me. I’ve since added it to my growing list of terms that are red flags signifying the approach of people who think far to highly of themselves…diversity, nurture, dynamic…I could go on.
If you want to be taken seriously then speak plainly and remember that not everyone wants to live in Seattle.
Don - Thanks for correcting the notion that your “different” take on the subject was skeptical or negative. I’d go one further and point out that the Richmond weblog community—or the portion that is young, active and smart as whips—not only publicized the charrette in a positive manner, but that they turned out to actively push for a change in their community.
On another note, if you go to 4th and Main and look toward VCU what you will actually see is a major expansion of VCU’s campus, and if you fast-forward your view a year, you’ll see another vibrant urban streetscape. The reason you didn’t see anything there for the previous 40 years is because a small cluster of developers sat on the property.
The changes I’ve seen in Richmond—both in the city and the region as a whole—has been tremendous, especially in the past five years. As someone who has lived in, worked in and reported on Richmond for years, I’d suggest that anyone who looks at Richmond and sees no change is looking at the past, not the present.
Bart - I wasn’t “skeptical” of the charrette at all and enthusiastically participated in the event on Saturday. I can’t imagine how anyone reading my words at Save Richmond— even the satirical quiz I wrote on the Downtown Plan process — could accuse me of being “skeptical” of the charrette or Dover, Kohl. Is it “skeptical” to remind people that only 20 citizens provided input to the last Downtown Plan update? Is it “skeptical” to note the embarrassing lack of advance public notice — and half-assed media coverage — for this year’s event (until John and other bloggers started getting the word out)? Please explain.
Hey Ed, I agree with much of what you say. Note that the urban professional seeking an exciting experience will get it on Main between 17th and 25th sts. The Tobacco Road apts. went bankrupt but are still around in another configuration. Safety is still the number one concern.
So there are going to be new restaurants and entertainment venues on Hull St in Manchester. Question: Would you walk Hull St. in Manchester at night?
Hate to be so critical. However, for the City trying is not enough. The old phrase “I am doing the best I can” may apply to the City, but the retort is “well that just isn’t good enough” or “it just isn’t world-class”.
Sorry Larry, but after 40yrs. in the area, there is nothing redeeming about the City of Richmond. It has been mismanaged, a source of racial hatred, violent crime, unsafe downtown streets and has not changed one iota since 1967.
Go to 4th & Main and look toward VCU, the view is the same as when I worked in the Massey Bldg. 40yrs ago. I would have bet lots of money that by 2007 there would be office buildings, high rise condos, hotels, etc. Nothing different.
Racial politics have kept Richmond out-of-the-mainstream. Why would any corporation want to locate inside the City? Meadwestvaco execs either are stupid or received undisclosed bribes. Bad schools, bad parking, and most of the workers do not want to commute. I could go on, but enough said.
Bart Hinkle muses, “Is meaning well entirely independent of being correct about something?..............“
No, definitely not Bart. But I know there’s some old-fashioned adage that scorns, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.“ Which is an asinine phrase, in my opinion—as though the road to Heaven is paved with bad intentions (???). Yeah, sure, some people will regurgitate, “6th Street Marketplace! White Elephant! 6th Street Marketplace! White Elephant! AWK!“
But the only way to get ahead is to try. I am happy to see the ideas & efforts out there.
The only part about this current vision that I dislike is this River City stuff. Its very derivative; not at all ingenious or special. It seems to rip-off that Harbor stuff of the 1980s (Baltimore, Norfolk, about 30 others…). Other than that, the rest of it all sounds great to me.
And Patrick, I am genuinely surprised that you (of all people) would take such a cynical stance vs. Richmond city. Shocked is a better word…Legalizing marijuana is more important, right?! Hmmmmmmmmmmmm…..
I know I did not attend, so they missed out on my unique suburban perspective.
Except it was not a unique perspective. They probably already have me figured out. My views are not all that unorthodox.
So, hey, I’m not the least outraged it was an inside job. I wonder also what would have been gained from a poor person saying another check cashing, ABC store, or convenience store is needed. Little lost is my guess—unless they can build a city by catering to those desires.
Another park, library, or better yet, better schools would be excellent, but you need tax money to do that, not Monopoly money. The Richmond scheme to juice money from parking tickets is not the best plan to get those revenues.
So how do you get it ? Solicit input from young urban professionals. Find out what makes them happy and then do it.
Richmond will probably continue to lose the bedroom community set to suburban schools, but for young urban professionals wanting an exciting urban experience, Richmond could be a draw. I was talking to a youngster from Maryland at the coffee place. These kids are mobile. Build it and they will come ?
Yes, only if you build it for the right people at the right time. I wouldn’t trust City Council with a used crayon, but I can guess what will or what could work in the long run, and if you look at tobacco row, is already working.
Bart inquired:
“Is meaning well entirely independent of being correct about something? Perhaps it depends on the issue. People who mean well can inflict terrible harm, sometimes intentionally (see “Cultural Revolution”), sometimes not (see “culture of dependency”). But is malice more likely to produce an inaccurate interpretation of events than false hope or utopian ambition? Beats me—just wondering aloud. . . “
Dear Sir:
Good thoughts. May I riff on them for a while? Thanks.
I just read Hoffer’s “The True Believer,“ a book I started 30 years ago and was finally enough of an adult to understand. He lays it out pretty plainly: The True Believer is a person who has little or no sense of self-worth unless he is embroiled in a cause “larger than himself.“ He sees himself as incapable of being happy, efficacious or content unless he “fixes” his social environment. He is the natural prey and stooge of any charismatic madman who points him at his perceived tormentors and tells him the ends justifies the means, so sic ‘em, Bowser!
The charismatic madman employs the True Believer’s existential insecurity and sense of utter worthlessness to get him to do things he probably wouldn’t dream up on his own. Thus is facilitated the slaughter of the kulak farmers in the U.S.S.R., Hitler’s serial depredations against Jews, Gypsies and Slavs, Pol Pot’s reign of terror, etc.
“Meaning well” in this context is little more than a mask for doing what the True Believer really wants to do: get back at all those people who have (he believes) held him back, made him small, taken away his power and deprived him of his fair share of chances in life.
A sense of victimization by person or persons unknown - coupled with an outraged sense of entitlement - usually leads to the worst of the “well meant” horrors of this or any age.
Then there’s the emotional aspect of this dynamic. When people quit thinking with thier intellects and start substituting emotions for reason, things have a tendency to go to hell in a hurry.
****************************************
So far as the update on the Richmond City Master Plan: It’s just a state-mandated process which requires a public hearing component. Those who are interested will attend the hearings no matter what color they may be. Those who don’t care won’t attend, and who the flip are we to tell them that they must?
Yer buddy,
Mark Dorroh
As the guy who is keeping <a >Buttermilk & Molasses</a> updated with an obsessive-level of content about the charrette process, and who has spent a lot of time talking to planners with Richmond, the Dover Kohl consulting firm and folks from other cities, and who was at all of the events this weekend, I’d say that former city attorney Sarahan is as right as he is wrong.
The charrette was underpublicized by the city, underattended by the general public, far whiter than mocha, deeply rooted in people’s individuals dreams and desires, free of constraints—and significantly more meaningful and collaborative than any previous Downtown Plan in the history of the City of Richmond.
Look, you can either treat events like this as a flash in the pan, or a veiled attempt to create a false consensus, or business as usual—and many people, too many people, do exactly that—or you can step into the space and work diligently to influence the work and the outcomes. Sarahan had many real points to make this weekend, but spent his time wandering the room calling BS, trying to interject himself into the process and annoying a lot of people who would have appreciated his perspectives. Because of his approach, he was dismissed as a blowhard—an unfortunate, but self-inflicted consequence of his approach to a city he apparently has a lot of passion for.
If this community could ever begin a conversation from the perspective that all of us can see the same things and still be right (which is far different from agreeing which is the “better” version of right), that each perspective adds value to the broader conversation, we’d be much further along. This charrette process had more black—and dozens more people in general—in attendance than the one in 1997. That’s progress. Is it enough progress? Hardly. But it’s progress.
Post Your Comments:
