What a joy it was to catch an hour long presentation by Robert Liberty today at Anchorage's City Hall. Anchorage Citizens Coalition brought him to town and titled his talk, Anchorage Can Get It Right. Indeed, Anchorage has been conflicted about growth and densification for awhile now. At this moment it's clear that the physical landscape has changed, and approaches to development and redevelopment practiced in the past are inadequate to enhance present and future quality of life.
While growth shock is a reality, opinions differ on the causes and best fixes. Just as when accomplished architects and artists visit Alaska on the Alaska Design Forum lecture circuit, or via another organization or venue, a Robert Liberty presentation is a chance to benefit from somebody else's experience [in this case, dealing with redevelopment strategies in a city that's now larger and denser but grew out of similar beginnings]. Portland is 60 years older than Anchorage, and about that many years ahead of us in their thinking and experimentation.
Of course, there's always an undercurrent [or sometimes, more prominent display] of skepticism that says, "This is Anchorage, not Portland; and it can't happen here". Liberty addressed that at the beginning, showing examples of infill redevelopment in cold climate, smaller cities. Yes, it seems that in many cities smaller than Anchorage there are more ambitious plans taking shape. He challenged the notion that we have nothing to learn by Outsiders. And then proceeded to show us some of what has been implemented in Portland without drawing any conclusions, or making any suggestions for Anchorage.
One important distinction he drew was in overall approach: fund outcomes, not projects. He used examples of two controversial projects there: proposed reconstruction of the I-5 bridge over the Columbia River connecting Portland with Vancouver, WA; and a proposal for a western freeway bypass. [Strikes one as so similar to large project proposals here: Knik Arm Crossing and Highway to Highway.] Why not, Liberty asked expand consideration of alternatives to include any that would achieve the same goals? [First, clearly establishing what the goals are.] This is almost opposite of what the typical process is in Southcentral Alaska -- specific projects are planned, and engineering firms and contractors are tasked with writing reports that justify the predetermined outcomes -- often with limited consideration of related consequences.
There's nothing like a couple of powerful aerial photos to help make your points. Liberty showed one of a typical US urban periphery, with a multi-lane freeway passing by marginally used industrial land, not well-connected between surface destinations and not hospitable or desirable. And next to it, about the same filled with a traditional city grid originating in the pre-automobile age. He noted that, in a compact connected grid, even with all the roadways only having two lanes there is a greater vehicle capacity compared with the pattern shown in the first aerial, because there are many alternate routes available.
Another fascinating example was from San Diego, where a road diet project converted a former five lane, two way arterial to two lanes with limited turning, and roundabouts instead of traffic lights at intersections. Where the old setup moved 20,000 vehicles per day, the new one still manages 18,000. With fewer lanes and fewer stops, the traffic moves slower but more continuously. Rather than turning left, one advances to the next roundabout and drives around it, making a 180 and then a right turn to destination. All that was an amazing achievement by itself -- the best part is that with the traffic calmed, the street has now become a desirable place to live and work -- and attracts residential development that never would have occurred along the former roadway.
Liberty wrapped up his talk with accessory dwelling units [a subject near and dear to us at FRamE]. ADUs, he said are an easy way to increase density that doesn't change the current appearance of neighborhoods very much. Anchorage has only had an ADU ordinance for a little over ten years, and they are still not allowed in R-1 zones [where they could possibly have the most positive potential impact]. They haven't really caught on yet, but there's so much potential as a way to leverage property value and diversify the experience of a neighborhood.
Anchorage talked a pretty good game in the late '90s when developing its Comprehensive City Plan, Anchorage 2020. The main focus was enhancing neighborhoods and developing Town Centers [i.e., dense neighborhood commercial centers with mixed use buildings]. In the years following, accomplishments have been disappointing and in many ways we are heading in the wrong direction. Liberty showed how a more honest accounting of goals and parameters would benefit us all, not only the few benefiting from continuation of present trends.