Updating the best practice elements of revitalization to include elements 7 and 8 | Transformational Projects Action Planning at a large scale

TransMilenio bus routes.  Photo by Julio Plaza for the New York Times.

An email discussion I think, and an article, "How Bogotá Tried to Lead the Way for Better Bus Systems," in the New York Times about the decline of the Transmilenio BRT bus transit system in Bogotá, which has close to 2 million daily riders, got me thinking about my writings on what I called the six elements of best practice revitalization, which were later augmented by the concept of Transformational Projects Action Planning, a new term for the first element of "visionary planning."

From another NYT piece, "What We Learned From Bogotá’s Buses," about the article:

That’s a lesson I took away from my reporting. We live in divided, short-sighted times. Transformative projects like TransMilenio require long-term “cathedral thinking.” They don’t conform to election cycles. They’re not the work of any single person. They’re like cities themselves: endless, incremental, evolving and collective.

Commitment and time is an issue, and so is "continuous process improvement." These items need to be added to the list.

Six elements of best practice revitalization initiatives.  Besides the example of Pittsburgh, the elements came out of the articles I did for an EU National Institutes of Culture Washington Chapter project in Baltimore, where I wrote about revitalization efforts in 7 European cities.  

The examples of Bilbao ("Why can't the "Bilbao Effect" be reproduced? | Bilbao as an example of Transformational Projects Action Planning"), Dublin, Hamburg's HafenCity, Helsinki's Arabianranta district, and Liverpool were the key to the codification.

1. A commitment to the development and production of a broad, comprehensive, visionary, and detailed revitalization plan/s (Bilbao, Hamburg, Liverpool);
2. the creation of innovative and successful implementation organizations, with representatives from the public sector and private firms, to carry out the program. Typically, the organizations have some distance from the local government so that the plan and program aren't subject to the vicissitudes of changing political administrations, parties and representatives (Bilbao, Hamburg, Liverpool, Helsinki);
3. strong accountability mechanisms that ensure that the critical distance provided by semi-independent implementation organizations isn't taken advantage of in terms of deleterious actions (for example Dublin's Temple Bar Cultural Trust was amazingly successful but over time became somewhat disconnected from local government and spent money somewhat injudiciously, even though they generated their own revenues--this came to a head during the economic downturn and the organization was widely criticized; in response the City Council decided to fold the TBCT and incorporate it into the city government structure, which may have negative ramifications for continued program effectiveness as its revenues get siphoned off and political priorities of elected officials shift elsewhere);
4. funding to realize the plan, usually a combination of local, regional, state, and national sources, and in Europe, "structural adjustment" and other programmatic funding from the European Regional Development Fund and related programs is also available (Hamburg, as a city-state, has extra-normal access to funds beyond what may normally be available to the average city);
5. integrated branding and marketing programs to support the realization of the plan (Hamburg, Vienna, Liverpool, Bilbao, Dublin);
6. flexibility and a willingness to take advantage of serendipitous events and opportunities and integrate new projects into the overall planning and implementation framework (examples include Bilbao's "acquisition" of a branch of the Guggenheim Museum and the creation of a light rail system to complement its new subway system, Liverpool City Council's agreement with a developer to create the Liverpool One mixed use retail, office, and residential development in parallel to the regeneration plan and the hosting of the Capital of Culture program in 2008, and how multifaceted arts centers were developed in otherwise vacated properties rented out cheaply by their owners in Dublin, Helsinki, and Marseille).

Transformational Projects Action Planning.  There are other great examples of community transformation besides those.  

While the concept was spurred by my writings on the Purple Line light rail system coming to suburban Maryland,

-- "(Big Hairy) Projects Action Plan(s) as an element of Comprehensive/Master Plans," 2017

but also best practice programs I've across and not always written about.  

A period of time in Toronto where multiple projects were realized, the arts in Edmonton ("Downtown Edmonton cultural facilities development as an example of "Transformational Projects Action Planning""), revitalization in Hennepin County Minnesota and Minneapolis, the Metropolitan Area Projects program in Oklahoma City ("Change isn't usually that simple: The repatterning of Oklahoma City's Downtown Streetscape"), Portland's focus on urban revitalization and transit, social urbanism in Medellín, etc.

Social urbanism

-- "Social urbanism and equity planning as a way to address crime, violence, and persistent poverty: (not in) DC," 2023
-- "Experiments in Social Urbanism"
-- "'Social urbanism' experiment breathes new life into Colombia's Medellin Toronto Globe & Mail
-- "Medellín's 'social urbanism' a model for city transformation," Mail & Guardian
-- "Medellín slum gets giant outdoor escalator," Telegraph
-- "Medellín, Colombia offers an unlikely model for urban renaissance," Toronto Star

TPAP at multiple scales.  Over time, as I wrote more about it, I realized it should be applied at multiple scales ("A wrinkle in thinking about the Transformational Projects Action Planning approach: Great public buildings aren't just about design, but what they do," 2022).

(1) neighborhood/district/city/county wide as part of a master plan;
(2) within functional elements of a master plan such as transportation, housing, or economic development; and
(3) within a specific project (e.g., how do we make this particular library or transit station or park or neighborhood "great"?); in terms of both
(4) architecture and design; and
(5) program/plan for what the functions within the building accomplish.

Application of TPAP thinking to other topics. Besides the Purple Line writings, I've applied the concept to other areas of planning, albeit a lot on transit, such as:

--  "Ordinary versus Extraordinary Planning around the rebuilding of the United Medical Center in Southeast Washington DC | Part One: Rearticulating the system of health and wellness care East of the River," 2018
-- "What would be a "Transformational Projects Action Plan" for DC's cultural ecosystem," 2019
-- "Framework of characteristics that support successful community development in association with the development of professional sports facilities," 2021
-- "Two train/regional transit ideas: Part 1 | Amtrak should acquire Greyhound," 2021
-- "DC, Transformational Projects Action Planning, and the Baltimore-Washington Maglev project," 2021
-- "Nishi Kyushu Shinkansen, Japan, as an example of Transformational Projects Action Planning | Planning and executing complementary improvements across the transit network + advances in transit marketing" 2022

Commitment and time as element seven.  This item is implicit in the original list of six in that you need an implementation organization separate from government to keep the focus, especially because government interest waxes and wanes depending on who gets elected and their desire to work on their priorities, not the long term priorities developed by previous administrations.

The revitalization management process is never ending.  Not only does it take decades to see results, individual projects take a long time to come to fruition, e.g., two projects I was involved in in DC, one took 13 years, the other so far 23, although they are moving towards breaking ground.

In "Main Street Niches in a Mass Market World" Neal Peirce said that commercial district work takes at least 20 years.

DC is another good example in a different way.  Separate implementation organizations were dissolved by the Fenty Administration (2006) and incorporated into the Office of Planning and Economic Development (which is separate from planning), mostly so they could control what was done.  

But the city has never developed the capacity to be particularly good at that, and definitely the energy to revitalize the communities in the Anacostia River community has been moribund ever since, which has been about 15 years.  What a waste.

A great example of time and commitment is the German International Building Exposition (IBA).  It culminates in an exhibition, but is preceded by a multiyear phase of project development and implementation, and after the exhibition year, usually continues as more projects are finished.  It's easily a 10-15 year process.

-- The contemporary International Building Exhibition (IBA) : innovative regeneration strategies in Germany, MIT thesis

I argue we should do a similar program in the US.  

Adaptive management/Continuous process improvement/stasis versus dynamism/iterative process as element eight.  This follows from point six on serendipity and taking advantage of opportunities that fit the framework of the visionary plan, even if you didn't plan specifically.

That's to continue to improve.  Thomas Davenport calls this process innovation.  

Bogotá's new B.R.T. (bus rapid transit) public transportation system moves millions of passengers each day on bright red vehicles that course along dedicated lanes, avoiding the dense gridlock that clogs many roads in this city of 7 million. Photo: Scott Dalton for The New York Times.  "Buses May Aid Climate Battle in Poor Cities," July 9, 2009

Obviously, there is the New York Times example of Transmilenio and its failure to adapt and improve after its launch in 2001, in response to great success, and greater need.  

There was an initial round of improvements, better integrating the feeder bus network, and expanding lines.  But after that, and admittedly with successive administrations, improvements didn't continue ("Bogotá, Colombia, Backslides After a Comeback," NYT, 2011).  From the article:

To some degree, TransMilenio has become a victim of its own popularity: it is now hobbled by long waiting lines, overcrowded buses and delays in building new routes. But it has also been transformed into a setting for armed robberies and violent protests. Óscar Naranjo, the director of Colombia’s national police, announced in February that a force of 350 police officers would patrol TransMilenio in efforts to combat crime on the system.

Again DC has a great example as c. 2000 it was national best practice in terms of improving streetscapes in commercial districts, significantly boosting success of those areas.  Around 2006 it "repaired" Thomas Circle, which decades before had been cut through with more road travel lanes.  They remade it into a full park circle.

But by then, other cities, especially San Francisco (Sustainable Mobility and Climate Action Strategy) and New York City (World Class Streets: Remaking New York City's Public Realm) began to outspan DC in terms of improving public spaces.  DC remained static, still doing good stuff but without added verve, while those other communities took a dynamic approach and continued to improve and innovate in big hairy audacious ways.

Streetscape improvements in New York City.  New York Times graphic.  Click on the graphic for a larger image.

Restaurant parklet for Ruby Wine and Alimentari Aurora.  Created by students in an architectural studio at the California College of the Arts.

Note however in some quarters, SF's parklet program, which replaces parking spaces with public and private (restaurant) patio like spaces, parklets being the foundation of the expansion of public space initiatives in SF, and was expanded during covid, appears to be backsliding too ("The end of San Francisco’s parklet era is upon us," San Francisco Chronicle).  From the article:

Parklets that were erected in 2020 under that year’s regulations, often to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars, have been subject to ever-evolving rules in the years since: at least three times, according to one owner I spoke to. Parklet operators face steep fines for noncompliance even if their parklets used to be permitted.

In 2021, after the city gave parklet owners just two weeks to comply with expanded regulations, Supervisor Aaron Peskin told the Chronicle, “It’s the most uncoordinated, messed-up, insulting display of government incompetence.” To grant business owners a reprieve, the Board of Supervisors unanimously approved an ordinance delaying parklet fines until April 1, 2023, and mandating that permit reviews by city departments take no more than 30 days. Mayor London Breed then granted an extension for parklet fixes to coincide with that date.

But now the chickens are coming home to roost once again. Case in point: Ruby Wine and Alimentari Aurora, the Italian deli next door, are crowdfunding for the $30,000 it’ll take to completely overhaul their joint parklet to meet the city’s new regulations. Despite making modifications and paying to apply for a minor encroachment permit that might allow for a bench on the sidewalk, Alimentari Aurora owner Dario Barbone says his applications have all been rejected. Even Supervisor Shamann Walton’s office, which agreed to assist Barbone with expediting the permit process, has had no luck in getting any response from city departments.

Similarly with plans, I argue that the finished plans are a beginning, not an endpoint, but that they need to somehow be dynamic as circumstances change over time.

Another DC example is development on the site of the Takoma Metrorail station ("The Takoma Metro Development Proposal and its illustration of gaps in planning and participation processes," 2014).  This has been going on since 2000, and finally a better project, albeit ugly as sin, is going forward.  

The city did a plan for the area around 2002.  My line was that it was a plan based on the late 1990s, and when DC resurged beginning with the election of Anthony Williams in 1998, the recommendations were out of date.  But residents used that plan as a basis for their opposition--with a plan that was based on circumstances that were 15 years old!

Adaptive Management is a six step process:

• Identify the problem
• Design
• Implement 
• Monitor
• Evaluate
• Adjust

But I'm going to call this adaptive management based on a presentation board I saw at Glen Canyon dam.  From the website:

The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program was developed to provide an organization and process for cooperative integration of dam operations, downstream resource protection and management, and monitoring and research information, as well as to improve the values for which the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and Grand Canyon National Park were established. 

Adaptive management is a dynamic process where people of many talents and disciplines come together to make the right decision in the best interests of the resources.

I will say that adaptive management is a lot like my old "Action Planning" approach, which uses the design method, which is similarly iterative and dates back to 2008 and my observation of best practice then.  

Action Planning is a framework with five inter-connected components:

1. Design Method rather than Rational Planning
2. Social Marketing
3. Integrated Program Delivery System
4. Packaged through Branding & Identity Systems
5. Civic Engagement & Democracy at the foundation = citizen at the center

I also used that model when creating the Western Baltimore County Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Plan back in 2010  ("Best practice bicycle planning for suburban settings using the "action planning" method").

The Design Method

The updated list.

1. A commitment to the development and production of a broad, comprehensive, visionary, and detailed revitalization plan/s (Bilbao, Hamburg, Liverpool);
2. the creation of innovative and successful implementation organizations, with representatives from the public sector and private firms, to carry out the program. Typically, the organizations have some distance from the local government so that the plan and program aren't subject to the vicissitudes of changing political administrations, parties and representatives (Bilbao, Hamburg, Liverpool, Helsinki);
3. strong accountability mechanisms that ensure that the critical distance provided by semi-independent implementation organizations isn't taken advantage of in terms of deleterious actions (for example Dublin's Temple Bar Cultural Trust was amazingly successful but over time became somewhat disconnected from local government and spent money somewhat injudiciously, even though they generated their own revenues--this came to a head during the economic downturn and the organization was widely criticized; in response the City Council decided to fold the TBCT and incorporate it into the city government structure, which may have negative ramifications for continued program effectiveness as its revenues get siphoned off and political priorities of elected officials shift elsewhere);
4. funding to realize the plan, usually a combination of local, regional, state, and national sources, and in Europe, "structural adjustment" and other programmatic funding from the European Regional Development Fund and related programs is also available (Hamburg, as a city-state, has extra-normal access to funds beyond what may normally be available to the average city);
5. integrated branding and marketing programs to support the realization of the plan (Hamburg, Vienna, Liverpool, Bilbao, Dublin);
6. flexibility and a willingness to take advantage of serendipitous events and opportunities and integrate new projects into the overall planning and implementation framework (examples include Bilbao's "acquisition" of a branch of the Guggenheim Museum and the creation of a light rail system to complement its new subway system, Liverpool City Council's agreement with a developer to create the Liverpool One mixed use retail, office, and residential development in parallel to the regeneration plan and the hosting of the Capital of Culture program in 2008, and how multifaceted arts centers were developed in otherwise vacated properties rented out cheaply by their owners in Dublin, Helsinki, and Marseille).
7. commitment and time.  Revitalization is a forever process that takes a long time to begin to see results.  It needs to continue beyond the vicissitudes of changing political administrations.
8. adaptive management. Visionary revitalization requires continuous process improvement.  Other ways to think about it are using the design method or adaptive management instead of remaining static.  Programs can always be improved and should be.