I’ve always struggled to start a blog. Most of the time I struggle to organize my thoughts in ways I can understand, and have pretty much lacked the confidence to risk publishing them in any way that opens them or me up to criticism. As a public employee, criticism comes simply by existing. Writing is therapeutic for me, but maybe this stuff is interesting to others too. We’ll see.
I read other blogs too by other Clevelanders, and my favorite ones are often written by people who are now former Clevelanders. The places you live never really leave you even when you leave them, but it seems like there is some level of clarity gained from time away (which is why I need to regularly retreat to the woods). I am not from Cleveland, and perhaps due to my personality it regularly feels jarring to live and work here in a way that isn’t extractive. Living and working regeneratively here is really tough.
So I am planning to write what I see and think and put it out there. Maybe it will help people think differently, maybe it’ll just make some pause and go ‘huh’. Sometime soon I want to write about what I’ve seen and experienced here and why I think it is tough to want to stay and want to make living here better. For now I’ll start like an essayist about change, specifically change in the context of planning and our built environment. I want to write, for now, on change theory in regards to land use rules and power structures that shape the city’s urban fabric, and transportation. These topics have long shaped environmental and economic outcomes in the city and have historically been tools of racial segregation. My theory of change will focus on two components:
Change must prioritize people over things: like shifting space towards people instead of cars, or putting opportunities for people to live ahead of preserving neighborhood character.
Put collective benefit first (health, safety, environmental, fiscal, etc.), ahead of individual convenience.
What we do, which policies we enact, should reduce to realizing one or both values.
A change to what exactly?
When it comes to determining which policies and actions related to the three topics and two value components stated above, I plan to couch them under the umbrella of Sustainable Development. Change to the physical space (i.e. a specific project) should make the City more sustainable by these criteria. If our current land use or transportation policies do not make the City more sustainable, then we shouldn’t keep doing them. We should change, embracing new ones that we know will, because either the science is sound or because it works in other places.
I may reference things like Smart Growth or Strong Towns because it is relatable and in my bubble these topics are pretty popular, at least to young white planners like myself. “Smart Growth” cities can be healthier and more environmentally sustainable than others, so there is value in this relation. Another theme I want to connect to is fiscal sustainability, or financial solvency. There is a great deal of overlap between “Smart Growth” ideas and the Strong Towns philosophy, and crucial to Cleveland’s success lies in addressing the “growth ponzi scheme”. It is from this pool of collective understanding and thought in the urban planning space that I want to draw upon to identify opportunities for Cleveland.
What also needs to change is our metrics for success, and how we communicate about change. Change I am very familiar with comes with new housing development. The change this brings is either ill-framed as developers vs. existing residents, or not framed at all in regards to how the city as a whole benefits. We need to acknowledge this lack of communication and understand the long-term, non-local benefits change has for our communities and our city. Increasingly these changes to neighborhoods are evaluated on how immediate residents are affected, with the goal of regulation to reduce any real or percieved harm they cause. Instead we should identify clear goals and metrics on which to evaluate how change improves the city - by supporting transit, by increasing housing choice and affordability, or by building a solid base for local retail and entrepreneurship.
Let’s start with 3
There are 3 areas where possible change is well within Cleveland’s reach, and each qualify as sustainable developments in our thinking and acting:
Policies that welcome a mix of land uses and more housing
Land use policies that create more walkable neighborhoods
Policies which promote, welcome, and encourage a variety of transportation options
The first contributes fundamentally to a more fiscally sound city. The greater the city’s tax base, the more resources we can deploy to meet the needs of residents and provide nice things we all may need, want, or enjoy. The second and third contribute fundamentally to a more environmentally sustainable city – realized by a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and by lowering our collective consumption of land, for starters. Underpinning all of this is the change in perception and framing that needs to take place around all of these. What are the goals, what are the metrics to measure success, and how easy is that to understand for any resident?
Some of these things cannot be fully realized by Cleveland alone, but that is also a topic for a future post. Nonetheless, Cleveland is obligated to be a leader in our region regarding what the UN has called a “moral, ethical, and economic imperative” to slow global warming. These won’t address all the underlying forces which threaten Cleveland, or the region, but they are a start. And that is because they are so easily doable.
Future posts will expand on various opportunities in more detail, explaining what exactly should change, how it should change, and what we can expect as a result. Some opportunities for change are easier than others, and I plan to start with the easy ones and go from there. Three I want to start with relate to each of the focus areas I outlined above.
Opportunities to seize
In most cases - at least for now, from where we are starting – these changes are to do less of what we’re doing. i.e., some rules we have need to be broken. Not broken in any illegal sense, but we have placed these locks on ourselves, and we alone hold the power to unchain ourselves from unsustainable policies. Here is what we do:
Reduce existing zoning restrictions on housing. These rules prevent us from welcoming a mix of land uses with housing. Paring back many of the archaic (and mostly exclusionary) rules that prohibit the density necessary for a population that can support local businesses and transit is an easy first step. We should regulate the form buildings take, not what is inside of them. We can start on major corridors that have long been identified as the most appropriate places to densify, but have practically been realized as auto-oriented commercial strips (and some of the deadliest places in the city).
Eliminate mandatory off-street parking minimums. This is quite possibly the simplest yet most impactful change we can make to land use policy in the city. Mandatory parking minimums push land uses farther away from each other and further obligate residents and visitors to drive. This land use policy is a direct impediment to building walkable communities. We can also phase this in, starting eliminating these rules for smaller projects and with alternative compliance rules like providing bike parking or transit passes.
Prioritize capital investment by more than just pavement condition. Our transportation system is more than just pavement. We should invest local, state, and federal funds to do more for us than just build smooth road surfaces, which can actually make streets less safe. Several options for additional priorities include multi-modal connectivity like bike and bus and economic development opportunities, whether they are market driven or identified as investment priorities by the State of Ohio.
What’s next
I plan to write more on each of these, and on further opportunities for Cleveland. These changes prioritize people over things, and embody collective benefit ahead of individual convenience. They are also achievable because they don’t involve raising money by passing a new tax or inventing a new technology. They do require a change of mind, which I don’t mean to trivialize. However these changes are entirely on us: there is no outside force, special interest, lobbying group, or whatever standing in our way. We need to get out of our own way, and in doing so we can unlock a more sustainable, brighter future for Cleveland. I want these essays to have a “do what is says on the tin” quality to them: these should be well defined, achievable goals which may not be widely accepted, but give us all a fighting chance at success.