Peculiarities of Regional and Land Planning - Essay Example

?TOTAL word count: 3071 Accommodating Skateboarders in Balanced Manner at the Plaza Trio Renovation The eyesore and pedestrian problems thatthe Dilworth, JFK, and Municipal Services Plazas in Philadelphia have become, made the space earn several unsavory tags. This has led city officials and their planners to consider renovation, regeneration, or improvement of the area in order to address pedestrian traffic, aesthetic, sustainability, practicality, safety, and other growing concerns of stakeholders. This paper provides an overview as well as planning issues of Dilworth, JFK, and Municipal Services Plazas in Philadelphia as well as details the proposed solutions with the author’s own observation and proposal for consideration. Specifically, the problem of accommodating the skateboarders of LOVE Plaza has been contentious. A partial plan has been underway to provide solution for the perceived planning problem. And it cannot be determined whether the problem should be focused on community cohesion, aesthetic, practicality and economy, heritage, safety, or even inclusion. It should be noted that the problem about inclusion of perceived community “nuisance” in the planning scheme has been a challenge not only for planners but also for policy-makers and the residents. However, their part in the history and narrative of places cannot be easily dismissed. The author has noted the importance attached by skateboarders in LOVE Plaza within the discussed area and will argue the need to reconsider their petition to provide them a fair space within the public realm. You are to prepare an article for a town planning journal to test your capacity for research and original thinking. The topic of your article should be a fairly recent or current town planning issue facing a local government authority and/or a local community, preferably be one that is being debated in the community and in the media. It has to be an issue to do with a type of development that falls under the jurisdiction of a local government authority (i.e. is assessed by a LGA). The article should achieve the following: Define the town planning issue. The town planning issue is the renovation of the Dilworth, JFK, and Municipal Services Plazas in Philadelphia focused on the re-accommodation of skateboarders at LOVE Plaza. The area has been for quite a while an issue when the original structures started to be seen as failed spaces. It had too many of the same thing in one place, and previously a “grand scheme to create a downtown of the future, with offices and retail integrated into the underground transit system,” (Saffron, 2011, P 7). It was conceived by planner Edmund Bacon who was described as legendary, and executed by Vincent Kling's firm based on Rome's Piazza Navona (Saffron, 2011). Renovation is a contentious word for planners and designers not only due to sentimental or heritage and aesthetic reasons but also economic (Needleham, 1968; Sigsworth and Wilkinson, 1969). There are a lot of various considerations for renovation, regenerations or redesign foremost of which is its financial and economic implication not only to the governing body but also to the rest of the stakeholders that include residents, and even non-residents for that matter. Certain balance is needed to be achieved in all processes of renovation so that there is double if not triple care taken by planners, designers and authorities in order to meet all criteria and expectations that the changes would achieve. The plazas were arranged to set off views of new towers, viewed as timely in the 1960s, complementing the modernist campanile Kling that housed the city services. It was envisioned as a “great places for downtown workers to lunch alfresco,” (Saffron, 2011, P7) but had claustrophobic high walls, inaccessible and yet had multiple staircases. The area also became a turn-off because maintenance had been neglected and due to lack of public interest, it was claimed by the skateboarders in the 1990s (Saffron, 2011). The area had been evaluated to be “three inhospitable islands encircling City Hall; an unfortunate legacy of the 1960s, a time when such grandiose spaces were built as pedestals for buildings; harsh designs; governmental no-man's land; forlorn plateau on the east side of the Municipal Services Building; dreary plazas” by Saffron (2011, P 8-9). It also made access and mobility within the area problematic (Saffron, 2011; PCMC, 2004) specifically for pedestrians as reflected in Appendix B. It is now imperative to suggest that aside from the bigger problem of uselessness or impracticality, the area has become an eyesore that needs to be eliminated, or at the least, enhanced. In its days of decay and neglect, the area, specifically the LOVE Park area where the design was perceived as ideal by a certain segment of the population, it has become practical, useful, and even iconic to the point of making it a global symbol. The problem is in maintaining LOVE Plaza as the hub of the Philadelphia skateboarders or why it is important to relocate them. As Hayes (2005), Freeman and Riordan (2002) suggested, skateboarders despite their popularity to many young people, was seen not only as nuisance in a community but also as anti-establishment. It is probably their choice of venues as well as irreverence of conformity that had earned them such but there has been no indication of anti-social problems that Philadelphia recorded in its LOVE Plaza skateboarders. Identify all of the stakeholders and their interest in the issue. The stakeholders of the issue includes residents, officials, planners, builders, designers and those who are in-charge of arts and culture, heritage authorities and environmental advocates in Philadelphia. Their interest in the issue includes aesthetic considerations about the merits of the existing plazas, probable improvement or maintenance of the area, least taxing to the public funds for cost of improvement, most acceptable plan and design by all stakeholders, affordability of the renovations, safety, mobility, sustainability, as well as practicality for all. In addition, commuters, visitors, workers and shoppers were also minor stakeholders. The major stakeholders in the instance where focus is on the skating rink are the skateboarders who have claimed one part of the area as their home and own. This has not been acceptable to authorities or residents who believe that the skateboarders should be removed or considered as public nuisance, together with the homeless who found use of the space as respite from nowhere else to go to. However, aside from the skateboarders are larger-than-life stakeholders that maintain the decisions despite the so-called public consultation, free speech, and policies of inclusion within the local governance. After the decision-makers are financers and builders who invest their funds to make things happen, and then, residents who are usually the most affected in an area for whatever community and town changes appear. Detail the cases that could be put by all sides. The most passionately affected by the proposed changes in the area are the skateboarders who have adopted the place as their own. The space has provided them rinks and an important venue for engaging in social and physical activities. The renovation would definitely disrupt their activities. As Heller (2011) suggested, “The planned renovation of LOVE Park isn't an issue most Philadelphians might think would have major implications for the city's international image. But if the renovations remove the features that made LOVE Park an international icon for skateboarding, the negative impact will be profound,” (P 1). The park became endeared to skateboarders for its curving granite stairs and walls which were considered as perfect obstacles for street skating. When skateboarding was banned in 2005, it became a global issue as previously, $1 million was offered to help balance the park’s use from California-based DC Shoes. This has been turned down, but it did not stop the local organization Friends of LOVE Park to sign 10,000 petitioners from 40 nations to restore the skating rink (Heller, 2011). It was argued by the then city mayor John Street and others that damage and liability were the main reasons that the ban was implemented. The officials also turned down the proposal to allow skating after 3 p.m. on weekdays, with no skating along key pedestrian paths to balance the park’s use (Heller, 2011). During the presentation by Levy, and residents also discussed the enforcement of anti-skateboarding laws and homeless people sleeping in parks. Levy replied that the parks would be “a managed place. If the area is active and well-maintained, these people don't come in,” (Ravindranath, 2011, P 6). As of this writing, the parking authority, in rebuilding the crumbling 810-car garage below JFK Plaza will obliterate the last traces of Bacon's vision including the beloved skateboard course (Saffron, 2011). Another consideration of stakeholders were those arguing for the rehabilitation of the buildings instead (Saffron, 2011). In addition, the following challenges that need to be carefully addressed by the planners and designers were also forwarded: The location of the plazas at the epicenter of Philadelphia's daily life that encompass the juncture of the city's downtown office core, transit network, convention district, and an emerging residential neighborhood; Residents and some owners of several nearby condo buildings clamored for improvements enabling the plazas to evolve into amenities like Rittenhouse and Washington Squares; The high walls on the east side camouflaging ventilation shafts for the garage; The Arch Street car ramps impede entrance to the park from the north The proposal to relocate the ramps to the west side of the Municipal Services plaza under the plateau and would restore a full sidewalk on Arch Street and an easy access to the park was seen as costly; The planning guidelines imposed constraints that limit the designer's creativity; Retain the diagonal axis with the parkway, Robert Indiana's LOVE sculpture, the round, Googie-style visitor center and the flower beds on the west side; Center City District president and CEO Paul Levy's vision for Dilworth was seen as a reaction to Kling's 1976 design of excessive stairs, level changes and ornate balustrades of which Olin and KieranTimberlake's design went for simple flat surface, with lawn at the south end, a cafe at the north, two transit headhouses and a programmable water feature with a main goal to serve as backdrop for a wide variety of events; The two curving headhouses and an elaborate underground transit room to elevate access to the subways were seen as a front to attract federal transportation money; The redesign was seen as “an extreme reaction” the problematic trio of plazas (Saffron, 2011). Other sides of the stakeholders were as follows: Dilworth Plaza can also be inviting and has moments of real beauty so that the city design community believes that poor maintenance should be improved and that the plaza should be rehabbed instead; Designers Timberlakes’ design was seen to have undergone minimal public scrutiny as a city-run project in consideration of its $55 million design. Plan to present to the neighborhood and design leaders is very close to the hearings at the Art and Historical Commissions. Propose a satisfactory solution you think would be acceptable to all parties, and would be in accord with planning scheme provisions, policies and legislation etc. The solution that has been proposed called “makeovers” by Saffron (2011, P 7) include the following: turn the area into a big-city version of a town square; create softer, more park-like settings with lawns, cafes, and a skating rink; elimination of the Reyburn Plaza to be marketed as a hotel site; make navigation around the City Hall easier; and create spaces where people - residents and tourists alike – would want to stay (Saffron, 2011). The proposed solution should encompass the return of a skating rink at the LOVE Park. Major park furniture, flora and fauna, seating and picnic areas, biking and walking areas that would attract more users at daytime and even nighttime should be located on other portions of the plazas in order to facilitate a balanced time-use for skateboarders. This will also facilitate the “balanced” proposal already presented earlier by the Friends of LOVE Park while exclusivity is avoided. Already, the planning and design processes have accomplished substantial tasks that include the designs for the Dilworth project. This was managed by the Center City District approved by the Philadelphia Historical Commission and the Philadelphia Art Commission. The Philadelphia Parking Authority already advertised for a design team to reconstruct the JFK Plaza. As mentioned above, the city planners have already drawn up design guidelines for the project. the Convention Center will complete a massive expansion that relocates its front door to Broad Street a block from City Hall's freshly scrubbed facade. Despite the achievements so far, the project should be managed in a professional, transparent way (Saffron, 2011). It was also suggested that the CCD hire a first-rate landscape architect. In preparation for the marketing of the Reyburn to prospective hotel developers and investors, conceptual drawings showed how a hotel could be placed on the plaza. The MSB tower meant to stand in splendid isolation on the plaza presents potential design problems once a new building is erected nearby (Saffron, 2011; Ravindranth, 2011). The plan and design should also consider the more than 185,000 that walk 10-minute at Dilworth Plaza every day 50,000 of which work in nearby office buildings aside from the residents. It was estimated that the renovation will cost about $50 million in a 30 months’ work-time and create about 10,060 jobs or $40 million in wages (Ravindranath, 2011). The proposal of the Commission includes the setting up of a statue of Octavius Valentine Catto, a 19th-century civil rights activist, on the southwest corner of Dilworth, fountain, public art installation, lawn, and two transportation head houses, public restrooms available only in the proposed cafe, and movable chairs in a public park (Rabindranath, 2011). As can be viewed on the proposals, there is the effort to address balance in the planning and design process. Balance is a major component in planning and design. Various components and considerations either clash or require more importance than the other that necessitates planners and designers to strike a good compromise or cooperation to achieve near perfect goals. As Riddel (2006) suggested, stakeholders must be prepared to contribute in order to carry out a sustainable plan and design. There are three factors that influence the planning and design outcome: the type of guidance, circumstances, as well as the people who prepare them (Cowan, 2002). Planners, however, should adhere to planning and design principles that promote and develop sustainability that results to positive impact on the social, economic, and environmental well-being of the peoples at all times and circumstances (Cowan, 2002). “The art of urban design lies in balancing principles that may conflict with one another,” (Cowan, 2002, 48). In the process, standards may be rigid and impractical or inflexible to enable balance and this has been seen on the case of the skating rink as demands for a “peaceful community” has dictated for the mayor to exclude certain sectors of society. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission has earlier suggested that the problem on addressing the skating rink presence was resolved by former mayor Street’s relocation of the skateboard park in 2002 (PCPC, 2004). In the current plan, it was also indicated that a skating rink was included but specific details have yet to be presented to the public. The current mayor’s discussion with nearby residents, however, has indicated that exclusion was a high probability. Skateboarders according to a 2002 study (Freeman and Riordan) were seen as outsiders although an insight on the culture of skateboarding provides a contrast to the negative impression of “nuisance”. Within observed activities, themes of acceptance, fun-building and sharing, energy and drive, concern for safety, progress and expression of individuality and style were observed (Moore, 2009). Lack of uniform or identifying jerseys for team or sponsors were observed although similarity on attire construct were noted indicating that the participants prefer comfort with the use of baggy pants and loose-fitting shirts. Hayes (2005) also noted how the game evolved with its venue where empty swimming pools, and other unoccupied and abandoned concrete spaces indicating the theme of progression where members push their limits in exploring out new levels. The anti-establishment perception of skateboarders, breaking away from traditional sports, was also seen as a social resistance (Freeman and Riordan, 2002) although Moore (2009) suggested that “Even with the status of professional athlete, the subjects in this study were observed as happy, comfortable, and inclusive…Skateboarding allows for individuality as rules are minimal and self-expression is encouraged. This freedom to be creative and express oneself through skateboarding activity can be a means of empowerment,” (P 21). Reflection Changing the landscape and lay-out of a town center is one of the major challenges of many existing local government agencies. The process may be called regeneration, renovation, or redesign. While buildings and its characteristic peripherals and environs may prove useful, practical, or even innovative at the time it was set up, such as the trio of plazas discussed, changes become inevitable so that at one time or another, there comes the need to renovate, remove, or obliterate an entire block or even many blocks within an area to address changes. This has been the case for the skateboarding rink adopted at the LOVE Plaza in the trio plaza discussed. The changes in planning and design although may always be seen as progressive, would not always prove as welcome to all stakeholders. While LOVE Park and Dilworth had been seen as irritants for a while, the space was adopted by what some members of society treat as “outcasts” such as the skateboarders. It became a significant space for the skateboarders but its general image was neither aesthetically pleasing nor practical, that soon it would also be denied its importance. Thus, the need to obliterate it. Many societal problems are reflected as well as reinforced in many urban or town planning schemes. While cities were formed for attracting lowly paid workers, it would soon become necessary to screen them off from the same few groups of people that they have enriched. Their numbers, however, provide economists and political planners’ reason to strategically plan “inclusive” approaches such as building of “affordable housing”, development of city outskirts, and other schemes that promote inclusion and diversity. While some of these projects worked, many did not turn out as “affordable” to their targeted market, or practical at all. These same people that are excluded would, most of the time, afford only public spaces such as parks as their respite in their daily “grinds” and it is still problematic for some to comprehend the reason why their own leaders and “neighbors” drive them away elsewhere. This has been seen on the adopted skating rink which first was an aesthetic design, that soon wore its viewers and users out. While a skating rink may be any concrete form at all, it should be noteworthy that in the decay or neglect of the space in focus, it was the skateboarders who were able to appreciate and find use for it. And when the time came for the availability of funds to improve the space, it is disheartening to learn they are the first to go. A well-balanced compromise must be considered in order to embrace the importance of the LOVE Park as well as the people who have come to appreciate it when it was least liked. This should be done not only for posterity’s sake but also as an inclusive move of the local governance. Reference: Cowan, Robert. 2002. Urban Design Guidance: Urban Design Frameworks, Development Briefs and Master Plans. Thomas Telford Publishing. Freeman, C. & Riordan, T. (2002). Locating skateparks: The planner’s dilemma. Planning, Practice & Research, 17(3). Hayes, A. (2005). Dogtown and Z-Boys: Teaching the documentary. Screen Education, 40 Heller, Gregory. 2011. Philadelphia has one last chance for skateboarding at LOVE Park. Philadelphia Parks Alliance. February 28, accessed from http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/372/p/salsa/web/common/public/content?content_item_KEY=8297 Moore, Linda. 2009.An Ethnographic Study of the Skateboarding Culture. ESPN 2009, fall, volume 12 number 4 Needleham, L. 1968. Rebuilding or Renovation? A Reply. Urban Studies, 5 (1). February. 86-90 Philadelphia City Planning Commission (PCPC). 2004. Parks and Plazas. Accessed from http://www.philaplanning.org/plans/parksplazas.pdf Ravindranath, Mohana. 2011. Dilworth Plaza plans discussed March 21, 2011, Philly. Accessed from http://articles.philly.com/2011-03-21/news/29171607_1_joint-meeting-ceo-paul-levy-ccd Riddel, Robert. 2004. Sustainable urban planning: tipping the balance. Blackwell Publishing Ravindranath 2, Mohana. 2011, Plan for Dilworth Plaza gets presentation March 22, 2011|By Mohana Ravindranath. Accessed from http://articles.philly.com/2011-03-22/news/29174794_1_public-art-installation-ccd-plan Saffron, Inga. 2011. Changing Skyline: In plat: The soul of the city’s center. Philly, February 11. Accessed from http://articles.philly.com/2011-02-11/news/28350555_1_three-plazas-design-guidelines-city-hall Sigsworth, E.M. and R.K. Wilkinson. 1970. Rebuilding or Renovation?: a Rejoinder. Urban Studies 7 (92). Appendix: A: Love Plaza Source: Philadelphia City Homes, 2011 B: Traffic and Mobility Source: PCPC, 2004 C: JFK Source: Urban Toronto, 2011 http://urbantoronto.ca/showthread.php?10039-Phabulous-Philly-%28Part-I%29 C: Map D: Dilworth Source: CBS Philly, 2010 E: Plan for Dilworth \ Dilworth, Municipal Services and JFK Plan http://casalugano.ch/dilworth-plaza Read More