A Conversation With Fred Kent, Leader in Revitalizing City Spaces, By Samantha Michaels, The Atlantic, September 16, 2011

This is an excellent article on urban planning.  It is Mr. Kent's contention that the people who should be involved in this process are the people who "live, work, and play" (sound familiar?) in the area being considered, not urban planners.  Moreover, his article makes not one reference to the involvement of local developers or politicians in the process (at least in a positive light).  The money quote:  

To us, the community is the expert, so long as they are asked for their input.

This is the introduction to the article:

For someone who makes a living revitalizing city spaces, Fred Kent has an interesting take on professional urban designers: he thinks they're overrated. The real urban design experts, he says, are the ordinary people who actually live and work within a community. And with his nonprofit organization, Project for Public Spaces (PPS), Kent is doing his best to empower them.

Founded in 1975, Project for Public Spaces helps community members design, plan, and manage public spaces by considering their own needs and values. Kent calls this process Placemaking, and he has used it to transform popular landmarks around the world, including Detroit's historic Eastern Market, Houston's Discovery Green park, and New York City's Times Square. Here, he discusses the difference between Placemaking and traditional design, how public spaces can foster stronger communities, and why ordinary people make the best urban planners.

 For the rest of this excellent article, click here.

RESTON TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS AT JULY 27, 2010, MEETING

Subject: Reston Task Force committee meetings

Good afternoon all (Reston Task Force members),

At last Tuesday's Task Force meeting, a question was raised as to when the Task Force Committees for the Town Center, Wiehle and Herndon-Monroe should conclude their work. Today Patty and I agreed to add a full Task Force meeting for Tuesday July 27. It is our thought that the Task Force should discuss the committee recommendations at that meeting.

To facilitate discussion at that meeting, we ask that each committee plan to forward to Patty, myself and Sandi a document summarizing the committee recommendations by COB on Thursday July 15th. We will ensure that the Task Force members and public (via website) have at least 7 days to review the recommendations.

I understand that the July 4th weekend is in that time period but hopefully your committees can schedule one or two additional meetings in that timeframe.

On another note, I am looking to identify some meeting locations for your committees. More on that next week.

Finally, attached are guidelines for the committees that the Process Committee suggested to help address use of email among the committee members and FOIA concerns

Have a good holiday weekend.

Heidi
Heidi T. Merkel, AICP
Senior Planner
Planning Division, DPZ
direct phone: (703) 324-1383

FINAL Reston Task Force Committees Doc (5/17/2010)

Summary: Reston Task Force Meeting, May 11, 2010, Terry Maynard

Notes on Reston Task Force Meeting, May 11, 2010

Final Agenda: Reston Task Force, May 11,2010

RESTON MASTER PLAN SPECIAL STUDY
TASK FORCE

May 11, 2010

Task Force Meeting
Reston Community Center at Lake Anner

AGENDA


7:00 p.m. Public Comment Period

7:15 p.m. Briefing: Planning for Parks and Recreation Facilities
• Sandy Stallman, Fairfax County Park Authority
• Leila Gordon, Director, Reston Community Center
• Larry Butler, Reston Association Director of Parks & Recreation

8:00 p.m. Briefing: Macro view of Transportation Network
• Leonard Wolfenstein, Department of Transportation

8:30 p.m. Update: Town Center Committee of the Task Force
• Committee Representatives

8:45 p.m. Update: Process Committee of the Task Force
• Mark Looney, Committee Representative

8:55 p.m. Update: Draft Planning Principles
• Patty Nicoson, Task Force Chair

9:05 p.m. Briefing: Fairfax County Affordable Housing Policy
• Heidi Merkel, Department of Planning and Zoning

9:15 p.m. Overview of north Reston Town Center area
• Heidi Merkel, Department of Planning and Zoning

9:25 p.m. Upcoming Meetings -
--Saturday May 15th – Community Forum re: Transit-Oriented Development (South Lakes High School cafeteria)
--Saturday May 22nd – Reston Town Center north Community Meeting (Langston Hughes Middle School)
--Tuesday May 25th – Task Force Small Group exercise re: Wiehle Avenue (RCC at Lake Anne)


9:30 p.m. Adjourn - Patty Nicoson

Summary: Reston Task Force Process Comm. Meeting, May 7, 2010, John Lovaas

This second Task Force Process meeting, held Friday morning at the Supervisor’s police station, had a much smaller attendance. Only six Task Force members were present, including Chairperson Patty Nicoson, M. Looney, J. Stowers, A. Hill, V. Foster and B. Penniman. Heidi and Richard Lambert were there from the county.

While their agenda had 4 items, most of the time was spent on bantering back and forth about whether or not to establish subcommittees along the lines of the Reston Town Center (North) subcommittee and when, and what should be on the agendas for the upcoming Task Force meetings on May 11, May 25 and the special one June 1 as well as the Community Meeting May 22. A draft table of contents for the Task Force final report prepared by Foster and Penniman was handed out but not discussed. (NOTE: The draft outline is here.) It starts an idea of where they think they are going.

While the repetitive discussion on whether and when to create two subcommittees, one for the Wiehle station area and one for Herndon Monroe, was going on, a couple of troubling themes kept coming up from 2 development folks. Mark Looney agreed stressed his theme of keeping TF discussions at a general level, not get into detail of land uses, F.A.R.’s which should be left to landowners. County staffer Merkel sometimes seemed to back this, while Joe Stowers insisted that comp plans should “be about options”. Looking to realize land areas’ “development potential” was stressed often. Note: I found this troubling because it sounds like the objective is to fill land with buildings, not necessarily to create a thing of beauty, that stresses community, liveability and mobility. Open space, natural areas and infrastructure such as schools are not mentioned. Transportation improvements for pedestrians and bikes in addition to roads are given modest lip service but are not the focus.

There was apparent unanimity to create the two new subcommittees with an RTC type mandate. Mentioned but not resolved, I think, was the question of extending the RTC Subcommittee mandate to include all of TC north and particularly south of the station—the latter being of particular concern because there has been so little conversation of “development potential” on that side—including connecting eastward to JBG Land.

As I understood it, the plan is as follows:

At the May 11 Meeting:
-County staff presentations on: Transportation—“situation in current transportation Hpatterns, changes likely with advent of transit.”
-County staff on Park Authority role, changes in way they plan park space. [Arthur Hill of P & Z said he thought “park stuff” was peripheral; TF’s focus is on commercial, industrial ? and residential development!]
-On affordable housing. (after suggestions that this be dropped—it was retained, I think.)
-Update on Process meeting!
-Update by RTC subcommittee—and possible discussion of extending their mandate to the south side, encouraged by lawyer Looney.
-Discussion of Planning Principles maybe. (Remember them?)

May 22 Community Meeting:
-Special presentation by a high-powered real estate market consultant; TOD discussion; breakout groups to discuss Herndon-Monroe station

May 25 TF Meeting:
-Wiehle Station breakout groups
-formation of Wiehle subcommittee—to report by end of June; announce and begin formation of Herndon-Monroe subcommittee
-Report with recommendations of Reston Town Center Committee—although this likely to slip to June 1 meeting with addition of southside mandate.

June 1 TF Meeting: Possible report of Reston 2020 Parks/facilities group pressed on chair by Leila Gordon. Led to discussion of opening to presentations by 4 other Reston 2020 groups—Environment, Transportation, RUDL and ?X?; possibly RA committees, others. Possibly report of RTC subcommittee, formal kickoff of H-M Subcommittee. (delayed after it was pointed out that the TF would be wise to give Polo Fields neighbors a lot of advance notice or there could be “political trouble”.
The latter led to expanded concern about the need to make the communities and community aware of changes to meetings schedules, changes to agendas in upcoming meetings, getting word to groups who might be invited to make presentations including Reston 2020 groups and any others, like RA committees, possibly ARCH, etc. Comment: While Chairman Nicoson has been more receptive than the norm to community input, she is under pressure from several TF members and the calendar to move on and leave the community aside. I fear an attempt to line up all possible groups, give them 10 minutes each, check that block as “community participation” done and move on without any real effort to incorporate important substantive work done by 2020 work groups in particular.

Opinion: The Process group again failed to see the forest while being led by the nose into the trees. The TF still has adopted NO guiding principles as they go piece by piece looking for development potential NOT community potential. In the first place, they should have adopted an overall vision for Reston (while there has been talk of at least doing so for the corridor, there is no vision at that level either.) from which would have flowed the planning principles to guide their analysis and discussions of the 3 station areas, Town Center and the village centers (and other areas?) to follow.

Instead, the TF is building up the maximum “development potential” in discussions increasingly led by landowners and their lawyers with no overall vision. So, the group maximizes what can be done at Wiehle, then Town Center and then Herndon-Monroe before moving on to do the same for each of the 5 village centers—and then maybe the connecting, all-enveloping high density “sinews”. You get the idea.

OK, so what does it matter what order they go in? It matters because as we get down the pike, or at the end, we’ll find we have a residential capacity for 150-160,000 people and commercial development greatly surpassing the new, but now revised downward, 85 million square feet at Tysons Corner. And, we’ll find we have no schools for this 150% increase in population, nowhere near civilized amounts and quality of open and natural spaces, and pathetically inadequate pedestrian, bicycle and even vehicular transport infrastructure. Only a couple of people on the Task Force, especially John Carter, recognizes this. What will it take for the sheep to stop being led and starting to approach a master plan at the community level.

The current approach is backwards and marches us towards a Tysons outcome NOT a Reston outcome.

John Lovaas

Official Summary: RTF Process Committee Meeting, April 16, 2010

Reston Task Force Process Comm Summary 041610

For another perspective on this meeting, read the notes taken by John Lovaas.

RTF Process Committee Meeting Notes, April 16, 2010, John Lovaas

This morning I attended the Task Force's meeting on PROCESS. About 15 people attended from the TF plus Goldie and Heidi. The rest was probably half regular members, half alternates. Developers and allies were outnumbered, but still led a lot.

Meeting began by general expression of frustration with either TF pace or lack of clear direction or both.

Heidi then reminded group of the mission, showing slides of some of the goals and "drivers" that had been shown in early meetings. She encouraged folks to remember that the TF's job was not to start anew on the comp plan, but only to make recommendations if truly needed, that their job was to concentrate more on the vision, the longer term view at a higher level of generality rather than getting into comp plan details. She said that the goals of TOD and the vision would not likely be realized for 20-30 or more years. [Opinion--we hear this refrain frequently, as though what the TF recommends is not so important in our now world, so not to worry....]

She gave an interesting example: the amounts of parking proposed at Wiehle and more so at Herndon-Monroe are likely set since "funding decisions have been made." But, in 20 or so years, when we are really beginning to see what TOD actually looks like on the ground, it may be time to re-open the matter for reducing parking lots (Joe Stowers agreed, pointing out that the parking planned is excessive and will make it hard to achieve real TOD!). But, it might be good to include that goal in the current Task Force's vision for later reference!

Several folks disagreed with the notion of the TF making recommendations only at a general vision level, not getting into specifics of land uses by properties in the comp plan. Bill Penniman was a champion on this one--arguing that indeed it would seem prudent to get into some detail if the TF was to really help shape outcomes. Arthur Hill chimed in that indeed that was true and the TF would need a lot better, more detailed information on current conditions both in terms of the comp plan and the underlying zoning. This got Mark Looney's developer dander up. He thought it much better to stay out of zoning and at a general level. Arthur reminded him that comp plans are relatively unimportant where the rubber meets the road because they are so easily changed, whereas zoning has the force of law. [I think we've heard Mike Corrigan, who was not present this AM, forcefully make the same case on several occasions].

Before the group got to actual discussion of the PROCESS, they went around on the parking issue. Richard Kennedy wants to hear no more about it, "it is a waste of time" because the parking is already set at both Wiehle and H-M. Patty disagreed, pointing out that the speaker the other night left room for possible change at H-M--but not at Wiehle which is in Phase I and is DONE. Looney suggested a third possibility somehow letting the extended garages be planned at H-M but possibly not given to MEtro to operate but to the private sector which might be more inclined to change uses [for more profitable uses??]. Polo Fields rep who sat with TF members argued strongly for flex to reduce not go to max at H-M.. It was left with Patty interested in the Looney proposal...

On PROCESS, the group decided to go to more small group action, but not entirely so as not to block the fullest understanding and fully informed consensus by the TF as a whole. Richard Kennedy and Mark Looney seemed to share strong distrust of turning process over to smaller groups,. Arguing ultimately for a kind of hybrid where, if I understand it correctly, the TF will break down into groups (probably one for each station area) early in the next meeting and then report back to the larger group at some point in hopes of getting the full TF to a better informed, detailed consensus. Some argued for continued work in groups, with each station group required (per Kennedy’s insistence) to make a written report to the committee of the whole for consideration, debate of different views that Richard said were lurking and needed to get out. Indeed, Richard came out a bit it seemed at this meeting. Looney argued for random selection of subgroup participants because self selection could lead to special interest outcomes somehow. Not sure how all of this will shake out, but Patty said she planned to move to the working subgroups at tne next TF meeting.

Someone argued a strong agenda (direction?) was needed. Van Foster suggested the TF should organize around accomplishment of the end product, which he saw as a report and the framework for action a sort of table of contents.

He volunteered and was tasked with preparing such a table of contents to guide the TF to conclusion and submit to the TF several days before the next TF meeting (4/27?). The Planning Principles crafted in final by John Carter (regrettably absent this morning) and Patty will be discussed voted on by TF and then presumably they will carve into workgroups…

Jerry Volloy expressed a concern about moving into the work groups without the context of the community’s vision as developed in community meetings. He asked point blank—“do we mean now to walk away from the guidance given to the TF by the community in these meetings?” Oh no, oh no, said Mark Looney.

Richard Kennedy was most concerned about focus on a final product.

Looney offered an approach for larger TF consideration of station areas—“start first with easiest, get it under our belts and work toward the hardest.” He suggested that the H-M was the hardest, should be left for last because of difficult issues of access, wetlands, etc. First would he Reston Parkway—now preferably called the Town Center station area. Kennedy wanted first to promote a discussion of what the package of the three should be—i.e., I guess, the theme of each and assuring they make sense when taken as a group. No one seemed to disagree—in fact, no one said anything in response.

Then Looney, who kept trying to steer the group—proposed that for consideration of each station area (and presumably Town Center) each group be given by County staff:

1-Community input summary for each area (notes from community meetings)

2- Existing plan recs for the area, i.e., “6-9 pages of text from the existing comp plan; and,

3- Existing land unit recs and plans overlaid with RMAG recommendations and “grid system”

His package noticeably (I thought) left out Arthur Hill’s suggested for the land unit current zoning?! In fact, I believe Arthur left early and may have missed this omission. No one called Looney on it. Looney went on to say, with no preamble or justification, that he thought groups might be instructed they no longer needed to stick to the “wedding cake” TOD model (of feathering density/heights down as you move away from the stations, I believe). Again, other than wanting the usual flexibility, I was not clear what the rationale was for the change….

Patty allowed that she was happy with what the group had accomplished but noted they still needed to deal with planning for community participation. Kennedy nearly jumped out of his chair. Tired of delays, wanted no additional meetings—“after all our meetings are all public” and people have been given many opportunities to speak. And, he said he certainly did not feel the TF should respond to everything written by someone from the community. Enough he seemed to be saying! Patty, to her credit, did not seem comfortable with this. Bill Penniman stood up firmly for the community to not only comment but to make presentations on topics or issues to the Task Force—and he said he thought it reasonable for the Task Force to discuss those presentations, react to them.

Alternatively, he suggested that perhaps community groups such as 2020 could submit strawmen proposals for each station area, for example. His thoughts were sort of left hanging as the meeting began to dissolve, but I believe the chair may have felt receptive, but she certainly was not decisive, so the matter was not resolved. This is something that 2020 will have to act on, following up in whatever way the committee decides is most effective or the working groups’s efforts are endangered and the opportunity to achieve our strategic goal will be lost…



John Lovaas