Out with the old, in with the new

Madison has lately been taken of a need to tear down and build up, slowly altering its picturesque skyline so that it's gone a little less sleek and low and a little more big and tall. I'm not of a mind that all change and development is bad. Sometimes, to really revitalize a neighborhood and/or a city, fresh ideas and modern amenities are needed. But I believe in balance, including when it comes to development. Progress, after all, shouldn't be measured only by our ability to tear down old things and replace them with something entirely new and different.

Yet our city's historic neighborhoods face this exact mentality. The most recent example can be found in the area surrounding James Madison Park, where Apex Enterprises is working to construct new apartment/condo buildings. At a meeting with the neighborhood last weekend, their architect unveiled several different proposals for what might be done. One has a giant glass behemoth seemingly enveloping the historic Lamp House. Another splits the building in two, on either side of the house. A third proposes that the home be moved all together to make room for a narrower tower.

As Brenda Konkel laid out in her blog, these proposals also call for the demolition of several (eight at last count) other historic homes in the neighborhood.

I recognize that not every old home in the city can be saved once it reaches a certain level of disrepair. It's a shame, but it happens. But I also recognize that, here in the US, we are often far too quick to decide that, simply because a structure is over 50 years old, it should be razed to make way for something new. New isn't always better, though, especially when it fails to take into account the very attributes that make a particular neighborhood unique.

The James Madison Park area is what it is because of the large grouping of older houses it contains, access to and views of the lake, and its residential feel. Plunking a giant apartment or condo building into the middle of that would be like wedging an oversize foot into a tiny glass slipper.

Plus, do we really need more condo towers right now when so many of the recently built ones are still somewhat, if not mostly, vacant? And can Apex truly afford another private development when they're already working on several other large projects? These are honest questions that deserve serious consideration, I think.

I have to believe there are developers and architects out there with a better idea of how to integrate new ideas/buildings into older neighborhoods and landscapes. The notion of infill is important if we want to keep outlying land available for farming and plain old greenspace and avoid sprawl. But infill at the cost of the destruction of our city's history, aesthetic, and soul? Count me out.

Groceries a-go-go

I've been out of the loop again, but this time I blame it on the fact that I don't live in the effected neighborhood. Last I'd heard, Whole Foods was slated to move out of its old 3313 University Ave. location and into a shiny new space just a few blocks up, where a new development is slowly being built. That seemed a bit odd to me, especially seeing as how there's already a Sentry right across the parking lot, and a Copps just down the street. What neighborhood needs, let alone can support, three full-service grocery stores?

Apparently, however, the downturn in ye ol' marketplace and other such factors have nixed Whole Foods' plans to move and open a new store. Poor babies*. Y'know, I'd like to see a mixed used, preferably sustainable development go in where there is now only a big, gaping hole, but I think they could (and will likely now have to) find better use for it than yet another grocery store. And, too, there are other neighborhoods in this city that are decidedly lacking in easy-to-access groceries. If we're going to encourage new stores to open, why not point them in the direction of an area that actual wants/needs them?

It's important for neighborhoods to have various essentials within reasonable walking distance. We've done a great job of building totally isolated communities where you're pretty much forced to hop in the car to do any errands, and that's a damn shame. Not only is it ecologically smart to build mixed-used, it's also financially smart for the people who live there: less gas money (and car payments, insurance, etc.) to get where you need to go, more exercise, more community connectedness.

So I'm not at all bummed to hear that Whole Foods is likely having to pull out of its weird plans to move a few blocks just to be in the same 'hood as two other big stores. I'm not surprised, either, to hear that these large, ambitious developments are having financial trouble. Hindsight is certainly 20/20, but I think there were plenty of sound voices in the wilderness warning us about unchecked building even before the current downturn. If nothing else, we now need to take the opportunity to really rethink how we go about improving our neighborhoods and cities. It's becoming more and more crucial every day.

*Whole Foods as a store is nice enough and all, but I've never been a big fan of their overall business plan and bizarre CEO.

Community gardens and garden communities

In an effort to momentarily suppress my frustration and dismay over yesterday's FISA amendment vote, I'm distracting myself with a far, far more positive story.

Madison has long been known as a green-leaning city, having several community garden projects and farmer's markets and other such neighborhood improvement efforts. We're not perfect, and there's always room for improvement, but perhaps because we've never been a particularly industrial city, these sorts of ideas have been around for a good long while.

That isn't really the case with Detroit. The Motor City, once a shining metropolis of industry, has, in more recent decades, been abandoned by corporate interests and left to rot away on the shores of Lake St. Clair. Personally, I've heard little else about Detroit than that huge swaths of it are rapidly decaying, that crime is rampant, and that no one seems interested in investing in its future. In short, the story seems pretty grim.

And yet, some enterprising residents have decided that they're not ready to give up on their city. They've recognized something somewhat unique and full of promise in the midst of the urban decay: green space, nature slowly taking back the factories and empty homes, even pheasants wandering through inner city fields.

What they've decided to do with all that abandoned space is, plainly put, inspiring.

I watched this short doc about Detroit's citizen's efforts to help neighbors start their own gardens, all in an effort to alleviate what has become a "food dessert" in their neighborhoods--that is, there are no major grocery chains in the entire city, only fast food joints and expanded liquor stores, and it's extremely difficult for people to get fresh produce and other good-for-you food.

It led me to the Garden Resource Program Collaborative (a group that includes the Detroit Agriculture Network, Earthworks Garden/Capuchin Soup Kitchen, The Greening of Detroit and Michigan State University), which provides very affordable seeds, starter plants, information and tutorials to any interested person or group within the city. Slowly but surely, organizations like these are helping to reclaim the empty spaces for productive, green, sustainable purposes, breathing life back into a city all but declared dead by the rest of the country.

No doubt it will be a long, uphill battle - all good causes are - but the important thing is that they're doing it, and making it work. They're helping to empower residents long neglected by the big corporations and corrupt or inept governments. And just as importantly, they're helping to provide a healthy, sustainable food source. That's something we should all be working toward.

Any city, large or small, could stand to take a cue from these groups in Detroit. Urban infill as an idea has been around for some time now, and frankly, I think its proponents are on to something. In order to cut down on sprawl, the depletion of natural resources, waste run-off and the paving over of wetlands, etc., we need to focus on making our cities better, leaving the countryside for agriculture that can support surrounding areas, and open space simply to support nature. This also cuts down on transportation costs and the associated pollution, as our food sources become increasingly more localized. Gas ain't getting any cheaper, after all.

I'm both encouraged and impressed by the efforts in Detroit. I have family that live in the area, and I've seen first-hand just how devastated and neglected the city has become. It's good to know that there are still people out there who care, and who are working hard to make real, long-term improvements. Outside help would, of course, be useful, but this strikes me as a good example of locals taking the initiative to improve their lives and their communities. Ultimately, that's what it's all about.

You can read more about the Detroit community garden and sustainability programs here and here.