Today's Post has an op-ed ("Why streetcars are 'preservationist'") and an article by the architecture writer, "The debate over D.C. streetcars is coming down to the wires," about why adding streetcars to DC's transit mix is a good thing. A week or so ago, the Post editorialized in favor of streetcars as well, "Let's get rolling: The District and streetcar foes need a quick compromise."
--------------
Check out this gallery from the Post, "On the rails? D.C. and streetcars" and these galleries from Dave's Railpix for great photos of DC's previous streetcar system.
--------------
Both pieces focus on the fact that concern about the viewshed prioritizes the monumental core of the city at the expense of the rest of the city. Kennicott's piece in the style section makes the same points that I have been making for quite some time. From the article:
Arguments against overhead wires rest on two essential assumptions: that the city is filled with streets that have historically significant and aesthetically impressive views; and that wires and poles would be ugly intrusions on these grand vistas. The former is questionable, the latter a matter of opinion.
But the deeper issue is Washington's relation to the nation. Do we want to preserve the early 20th-century sense of ourselves as a grand, imperial city that overawes tourists? Or do we want to be a model city for the 21st century, a place where visitors from across the country and around the world can be inspired by innovative experiments in sustainable urban life?
I have argued that the preservation movement in DC came to the fore during the many decades that the city was declining and shrinking in population. In my opinion, historic preservationists saved the city, by helping to stabilize neighborhoods that were attractive but otherwise were made significantly less valuable by trends that favored suburban living.
But this approach is focused on the shrinking city, and doesn't work too well when the city has the opportunity to grow, to be relevant again in the 21st Century, in a time when urban living and commerce is seen as increasingly important and valuable.
In fact with regard to Kennicott's question:
... do we want to be a model city for the 21st century, a place where visitors from across the country and around the world can be inspired by innovative experiments in sustainable urban life?
A bit more than 4 years ago I wrote "Adding cultural heritage dimensions and expanded service capabilities within commercial districts to DC Streetcar planning" and said, among other things:
When streetcars for the city were first proposed (and I wasn't producing a blog) I wrote in a couple venues that the "cultural heritage" dimension needed to be developed in concert with the system for a couple reasons: (1) it would add value to the local history experience in Washington; and (2) it would encourage people to ride-sample the system and take back the experience to their hometowns (if they aren't from Europe) creating new advocates for transit across the county.
The Market Street Railway in San Francisco does this. The line features streetcars from around the world, dressed in the paint scheme and "branding" of the cars hometowns.
A promotional poster for the Market Street Railway. At the same time, commercial districts like H Street in Northeast Washington DC, could add historic streetcars (or replicas) to complement the service provided by the longer line, which in the case of H Street NE will start at the Minnesota Avenue Metro station, to provide for additional service and more stops within the commercial district (intra-commercial district service as opposed to the more inter-DC service of the longer line).
For example, the budding entertainment district at the east end of the H Street corridor might want to have additional service on weekends, and Thursday through Saturday nights. This will increase the likelihood of customers, add to the fun aspects of a night on the town, and would reduce significantly the stress on an already limited inventory of parking spaces.
-----------------
I think that Kennicott's question should be thought of also as a challenge to historic preservationists, that preservation needs to figure out how to be relevant in the 21st century as a primary component and complement to vital, thriving, sustainable cities, just as preservation was essential in the last half of the 20th Century for keeping cities alive and able to prosper in another day, when most every policy and trend was stacked against cities vis-a-vis the suburbs.
The streetcar issue is not the first issue where figuring out how to work with the 21st century comes up. Another is preservation vs. new development more generally. (There are often no good solutions for this.) And a key upcoming battle, which skirmishing is already underway, has to do with rewriting DC's zoning code to be more focused on the quality of form rather than the traditional method of height, mass, and use.
Giving cities the tools and technologies they need to thrive for the next 100 years ought to be the primary priority for preservationists and everyone else concerned with keeping cities viable in the 21st Century.
No comments:
Post a Comment