The Heart of It All

So, of course, beyond the specifics of vacant property, the big money questions are what insight did the SDAT team give us into how to make Albany a healthier, more sustainable city, and how likely is it that their recommendations will bear fruit?

As I said before, the quality of the presentation was uneven. While some bits homed in on some fairly concrete strategies or needs in terms of vacant properties, downtown residential, and building better relationships between the city and its institutions, others wandered quickly through outlines of broad or boilerplate concepts ("stormwater management," "energy efficiency") that the city "should address." They weren't wrong, but I hope there's more detail in the final report.

I would have loved to have a much shorter list in most sections and then hear some specifics spelled out. For example I would have loved to hear much more about the following things that were mentioned in a breath or two:

• connecting our various parks through greenways
• connecting better with our waterfront (Grace Perdomo: "Everyone would obviously like to see I-787 removed. And it would be unprofessional for me to hope that it would happen by flooding.")
• putting in a skate park
• needing more streetscape on East-West routes
• a citywide bike/pedestrian safety plan
• multi-modal transportation corridors and the trade-offs that need to be made to set them up
• focusing neighborhood development around assets like new libraries or bus-rapid-transit stops and matching zoning to that
• having the citizens involvement in developing the RFP for the planning consultants for the comp plan so that we're sure we get someone who knows how to do public outreach and will follow our various specific directives.

Again, I hope that will be there in the final report.

I think for the SDAT process to have been successful and worthwhile, a few things will have to happen:

1. The city and residents need to prioritize from the report a handful of the top recommendations, both on process and on programs, and turn them into an agenda that can be rallied around and used to draw more interest. (Said agenda should not, however, be fixed or exclusive until participation broadens.)
2. The city should move on the vacant properties suggestions immediately. That doesn't need to wait  for the comp plan: no one is going to come to the comp plan and say "Please leave the vacant rotting building on my corner." Implementation of something, a proof of not "sitting on the shelf," and a systemic change that will have such a major impact will do tons to lift cynicism and engage further residents. It will also provide a good and ongoing media hook. One of the more disappointing parts of the presentation last night was the absence of any media beyond myself and the TU. (That I noticed. Apologies to the Gazette if you were somewhere in a corner that I didn't see.) There were certainly no TV cameras.
3. The SDAT process and any coverage generated by it need to be learned from and capitalized upon to craft a comp plan process that is actually representative of the city's diversity. (More on this later.)
4. Some of the more open-ended questions and topics presented by the SDAT team could form the structure for comp plan meetings so that citizens are still coming on the ground floor, before a plan has been drafted, but the meetings none the less have some focus and can inspire creativity in participants beyond the usual litany of issues. (It should be noted for balance that at least one person I talked to was thrilled by the charettes and their breadth and could have "kept going all week.")

When the presentation and then the report are posted, I will propose examples of what #1 and #4 might look like.

Comments

[duffbeer703]

I didn't attend the charettes, but I thought the SDAT presentation hit some major issues that came from earlier brainstorming sessions.

I'm not sure what more you can want from such a presentation. You can't drill down into detail about rapid transit, multimodal transit, RFPs and streetscape modifications without having in depth knowledge of the law and policy.

For example, Western and Madison Avenues are also US Highways -- there may be complex considerations in state/federal transportation law that would limit the changes that you could make. The SDAT people aren't in a position to know that.

Also, some things the people seemed to want are wishful thinking. Parking structures are ugly, but CSEA & PEF will fight to the death over a reduction in state employee parking without major concessions. Concessions are expensive, and ripping out parking after spending millions on building it is unlikely to be popular with the state.

Same thing with 787. Yes, it's ugly, but it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to remove it and replace the river crossings that it's going to serve. Also, any 787 replacement would no longer be an interstate, which means that the city, county or state would need to maintain it. We're probably going to be living with 787 for 30-50 years. (If they said that to the crowd in that room, people would have flipped out and shut out everything else)

They touched upon many issues in a productive way that could set a tone for the whole process -- particularly the parts about establishing partnerships with state and institutional stakeholders.

[Miriam Axel-Lute]

Yes, certainly they couldn't give a detailed blueprint in an hour and a half. I just wanted a little more detail, as was given for other items, enough to really envision what they meant. But I realize I'm holding them to very high standards. I agree that overall they were productive and set a good tone.

[Jack]

A quick comment about 787.
Yes, it would cost hundreds of millions to replace it and the river crossings that connect to it. That said, it WILL cost huge sums to maintain it as is and both crossings will need major updating, perhaps replacement in the coming decades. (I seem to recall an article in the TU within the last year or so talking about DOT's long range plan for the Patroon Island bridge that included possible replacement.) Add to that the fact that the MN bridge that collapsed was of a similar design and that could add impetus to doing something major with the PI Bridge. If either or both of the bridges will need major updating in the next couple of decades and we don't take the opportunity to rethink the whole thing, we will have missed our one chance in a hundred years.
It also points out how vitally important it is to really do some hard thinking and serious planning when building infrastructure or major public projects. These investments are with us for generations and shape the destiny of our built environment.
Maybe instead of simple saying "let's get rid of 787, we should start to brainstorm about what we'd replace it with. I'll start by saying we should NOT bury it and make a park! It could and should be a broad boulevard with grade level crossings, bike and pedestrian access and some really great appartments and condos. It should have space for the streetcar system...oh wait, we don't have a streetcar system...

[Miriam Axel-Lute]

Jack,

On 787: I completely agree on all points.