[Son of Travis]

Originally Posted by wburg

In this case, it's a third variety: highly-paid planning consultants whose skill at creating pretty renderings is considerably greater than their ability to transform their pretty renderings into built reality. I was at one of the planning sessions for this master plan (around 2018 or so), where the consultants stated that their focus for the Railyards ancillary development was going to be principally office, because there were going to be thousands and thousands of new units of housing going up in the very near future in the Railyards, the Docks, and DoCo, and they didn't want to add more housing to the mix that might result in a too-lopsided jobs:housing balance in the neighborhood (which is currently something like 15:1.) The scoffs of disbelief from developers in the audience (including the Railyards team) were quite audible. They did end up adding a token amount of housing to the proposed mix of uses. I figure if we're lucky we'll get an expanded bus depot and the Green Line light rail wrap-around, and maybe an elevated walkway over the tracks in the next 20 years. If we're very lucky the Railyards will fill up with midrise Texas donuts and we'll need a city owned lot for a public high school on the depot property.

In this case, it's a third variety: highly-paid planning consultants whose skill at creating pretty renderings is considerably greater than their ability to transform their pretty renderings into built reality.

It’s not the highly-paid planning consultant’s job to “transform their pretty renderings into built reality.” That’s the developer’s job. But your point is taken in that we shouldn’t be blinded by the pretty renderings and should challenge any developer’s claims of viability (be they private or agency staff as they are both agents of change).

Early questions re funding should be every bit as important as questions re design, spacing, massing, and density.

While it’s unlikely funding has been secured early in the process, it is completely legit to ask a developer why his or her plan will find a receptive audience in the financial markets. Why are they looking at this mix? Why that count? What makes them confident that what they are proposing can actually be built?

What we’ve all seen happen too many times is a grandiose plan gets approved and then the developer comes back with something far less than originally presented after seeking funding. That’s as true with public agencies as it is with private developers, and thus ‘Urban’s justifiable skepticism.

It’s just as true the other way as sometimes a developer comes back and says "we have to greatly increase density (or some other issue) to get this project to pencil. I’m going to need another 150 units." Or… "turns out that high-speed rail is never coming to Sacramento, but thanks for the tax increase. I’m sure we’ll find a way to spend it…"

I was at one of the planning sessions for this master plan (around 2018 or so), where the consultants stated that their focus for the Railyards ancillary development was going to be principally office, because there were going to be thousands and thousands of new units of housing going up in the very near future in the Railyards, the Docks, and DoCo, and they didn't want to add more housing to the mix that might result in a too-lopsided jobs:housing balance in the neighborhood (which is currently something like 15:1.)

This is why so many master plans fail. The consultants’ “focus” should be a light touch, not a top-down command that rigidly dictates land use. Who makes them the arbiter of what mix is “lopsided?” Jane Jacobs had it right. Put in some general guidelines and let the market organically decide how best to use the land. And please don’t forget… the "market" is YOU deciding what is best for YOU.

There is no one better equipped to determine what lifestyle you want to live than YOU.

The scoffs of disbelief from developers in the audience (including the Railyards team) were quite audible. They did end up adding a token amount of housing to the proposed mix of uses. I figure if we're lucky we'll get an expanded bus depot and the Green Line light rail wrap-around, and maybe an elevated walkway over the tracks in the next 20 years. If we're very lucky the Railyards will fill up with midrise Texas donuts and we'll need a city owned lot for a public high school on the depot property.

Can’t speak to any scoffing of course as I wasn’t there, but I admit to occasionally being guilty of “scoffing” when I see a master plan developed by people with no real skin in game. Should the master plan fail, the planning consultant still gets paid in full and the planning staff doesn’t miss a paycheck.

Should a project fail, the developer loses his shirt (and typically all other clothing).

The developer succeeds only when he or she produces a desirable product (a lifestyle) that people are willing and able to pay for.

So, we’re back to this plan and ‘Urban’s comments. Does this plan satisfy a market demand (are people willing and able to pay for it)? Could this money be better spent elsewhere (where people are willing and able to pay for it? Is this all just pretty bulls#it pictures meant to keep an agency’s funding in place (plan fails but we won’t miss a paycheck)?

Demand answers to those questions now. Don’t be blinded by the pretty pictures…