Home › Opinion › Opinion
New urbanists trying to wall city in gray
STORY TOOLS 
More from OpinionVentura city government is now almost completely infiltrated by mostly imported new urbanist planning masters who claim to know what's best for us. They approach new urbanism as a rigid, utopian ideology — one size fits all. Their big innovative idea is that we city folk should walk and ride bicycles and live in high-rises as happy high-density urban dwellers. Meanwhile, the local residents already in place in little houses would live in the new urbanist shadow, remembering bygone days in the sun and longed-for views of hillsides, mountains and sea now blocked from sight. Forget property-value impacts on established housing. Raise up the new.
The elephant in the sunless living room is that the "walk-and-bike" concept only works where people have jobs within walking and biking distance. According to Prevention Magazine's survey of America's most walkable neighborhoods, walking to one's job was the No. 1 criterion for making the list. Jobs, like vegetables, must come before dessert. In Ventura, if you are not self-employed or working for the government, you are most likely commuting. Commuters are often too tired at night to get out and walk, though sitting in the yard, if one still had one, might add some healing restfulness. Unfortunately, the money that could have been spent for a nice dinner out has gone into the gas tank, and Ventura's businesses go wanting during the week.
Ventura has failed miserably at job creation that would support such a walkable nirvana. Job growth last year was zero. Our city government is known for being business unfriendly. Who dials for dollars at our city to invite chief executive officers from green companies to visit and tour at our expense? Anyone? We handed the $5 million of our tax money set aside for job creation to a venture capital firm, in hopes it could convince a start-up to start up here. Now, there's a quick way to dodge accountability for job creation: Just hand the budget off to a venture capital firm.
Building more commuter housing on all available land that is left is not a sustainable economic plan and leaves us dwindling space for businesses to locate here to create jobs. This policy leads to more global warming through forcing more commuting. Our current unsustainable need is to get more than half the working population to the freeways at the same time, morning and night. In a complete disconnect with reality, city planners want to narrow and load up the routes through which our time-stressed commuters must squeeze, saying it makes the streets more walkable. When there are local jobs, we'll walk. Until then, we must drive. Commuters get enough gridlock every day, without the city's help.
In the high-rise concrete cityscape they would impose on us, we will wonder: "Where are the birds? Where are the hillsides? Where is the ocean? Where is the sun for our plants? Where are our yards? Where can my child hit a baseball?" The ultimate vision for some new urbanists is for us to live in high-rise buildings with little patches of green at the bottom where we all go to experience nature communally, much as they do in prisons. Maybe we'll all learn to walk in circles.
Planners are now so enraptured by their visions of "enlivening the streetscape" in their new urbanist nirvana that they just don't notice the locals are aghast at the prospect of replacing open skies and vistas with concrete. The ideology that grew out of the sustainable architecture movement has become in its application a source of walling up a city in gray and beige.
Modernist architect Le Corbusier had a similar master vision for his radiant city, also out of touch with reality and people's needs. And so, too, the tower blocks of many a modernist. And the famous Pruitt-Igoe housing project had plenty of density but also a failed understanding of human needs. Are the new urbanists the postmodern version of master planners who do not understand that we need to live in and see our natural environment as a part of our daily lives?
City Hall is making new urbanism the only game in town when, in fact, it needs to make some sales calls to get some jobs here for the 20,000-plus suffering commuters who already live here, but who don't have time to walk or bike around town to spend their out-of-area incomes. These new urbanists just don't seem to understand sustainability. Higher density and taller buildings that result in blocked views and concrete corridors are not green, nor are they sustainable, since more commuter housing will not bring jobs, only more commuters.
— Camille Harris of Ventura is president of the Citizens Organized for Responsible Development.
Posted by shnyroq on April 18, 2008 at 8:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is the second most ignorant, thoughtless, and inaccurate article The Star has ever published from Camille. The worst thing about VCORD's initiative being on the 2009 ballot is we'll have to keep hearing junk like this from her for 18 more months!
MMSHOOT, the organization is called VCORD, and you can find them at vcord.org. Check them out, they are always looking for more like-minded individuals to help spread their lies. However I urge you to keep an open mind and not react solely on their scare tactics...
Posted by sgoenner25 on April 18, 2008 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Honestly, I don't even know where to start with this article. Many people have concerns about Ventura's future. To some, Camille Harris and the VCORD organziation has become THE voice against the big, bad government and all those out to get them. I would beg, plead and caution people against simply believing anything she says. Camille Harris, despite whatever research she claims to have done, touts unbalanced and heavily biased opinions. As a Ventura resident, I too am concerned about Ventura's future. Such extremist dialogue, however, rarely serves as inspiration for positive change. And despite what she claims, today's Ventura does allow for a walkable commute. I do it most every day.
Posted by shnyroq on April 18, 2008 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
mmshoot, VCORD is a essentially a "no-growth" group intent on prohibiting any residential development in Ventura. Many other people however see the need for certain areas of Ventura (Thompson Blvd. for one) to develop into a more enjoyable place to be, live, and work. Here's the link to the Congress of New Urbanism explaining what it really is that new urbanism is trying to do http://www.cnu.org/Intro_to_new_urbanism ... nothing scary there.
Posted by tabularasa on April 18, 2008 at 8:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yet another ill-informed basket of prattle from Camille. All this drivel tells me is that she is googling 'new urbanism,' 'sustainable design,' and even 'LeCorbusier,' and offering biased opinion in the guise of well-informed research. Like describing the taste of an orange by licking the rind.
Camille, how about point by point refuting the Awahnee principles, which form the backbone of the tenets of New Urbanism? Or pointing out the portions of the LEED rting system that support your sustainability claims? I recall LeCorbusier being a stalwart pro-Soviet socialist who even advocated the demolition of central Paris- how does this philosophy relate to this community?
The writer might want to stick with what she knows.
Posted by marketrealist on April 18, 2008 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Let's get this straight. VCORD wants jobs but no development on the beach, no development on the hillsides, and (hopefully) no development on the agricultural lands. How does this work?
No one is saying we need 10 story structures. However, just drive down Thompson or Main at 5 points. What exactly are we trying to "save"? Infilling this area to bring some life back into this town. Right now, if you have a professional services firm or small retail company there is limited viable space. We need jobs in Ventura. Who would dare propose any new companies in Ventura with such a strong oppostion group?
VCORD is sounding more and more like an extremist group whose agenda is becoming increasingly transparent.
Posted by vtaFRUSTRATE on April 18, 2008 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Here I am, a lowly Ventura native, college graduate and young professional. Currently working and living downtown, but looking for a home to buy. WHERE ARE MY OPTIONS! Single family detached home, the American Dream if you will, or a crap condo on the east end? When I think about those 'concrete corridors' that Ms. Harris unbiased refers to, I see a starting point. A starting point located amongst the neighborhoods I grew up in, where I want to own a home, but can't right now. A starting point that gives me access to amenities without the hassle of getting into a car or owning a car at all. I don't agree with everything New Urban, but I do agree with its promotion of diversity in builing types, aka options, and demographic mixes.
So there is my rant, from the other side of Ms. Harris'.
ps: Thank you Ms. Harris, for promoting the American sedentary life style. Let's not even give people the OPTION of a walk-able lifestyle, cause commuters are tired.
Lame, just say it... I GOT MINE, SO DON'T F WITH IT NOW. Ahhhh, that’s better.
Posted by shnyroq on April 18, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
mmshoot, that is an excellent observation and one of the key issues that is most troubling about their initiative - who are all these people that will ultimately decide the future of all development in our fair town?
Posted by shnyroq on April 18, 2008 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have faith that everyone can see beyond VCORD's rhetoric and get to the truth.
Posted by jewls82 on April 18, 2008 at 12:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow, "like describing the taste of an orange by licking the rind", that is a PERFECT analogy to what Camille Harris is attempting to do here. And not just in her floundering attempt to gain credibility by offering an architectural history lesson. Every paragraph of her piece offers unhelpful and inaccurate complaints of practices she actually has no experience with, all of which detract from what could be a very good point: that Venturans need more local jobs.
If Camille could get past her weakness for using public forum as an opportunity to undermine any and all parties who don't share her point of view on developers, she might have been mildly successful in bringing attention to the much more concerning issue of job availability.
Posted by VCProspect on April 18, 2008 at 1:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mrs. Harris comments on New Urbanism would have been laughable if she didn’t take herself seriously. I live in a neighboring city but work and spend most of my days in Ventura. Lately, I’ve been considering purchasing a home in Ventura but the options are extremely limited for a young professional such as myself. I would like to remind Mrs. Harris that there is a number of individuals commuting TO Ventura; these people wish they could leave their car parked for once and walk/ bike to their next destination.
If the City Hall is making new urbanism the only game in town –as she mentioned – It’s because the City takes in consideration not only her concerns but also those of others that love Ventura – Something Camille Harris Manages to leave out.
I’m bitterly disappointed by Mrs. Harris’ line of thinking and her deceptive attempt to trick people into it.
Posted by schlederdecopan on April 18, 2008 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Presently, the City's 'Planning Commission' and the City's 'Design Review Commission' are hand-picked stooges by the City Council.
If you do not 'do' or 'think' exactly like the City Council needs you to, you will not be given a commission position. Nor receive your little green cap with the motto "New Urbanism" on the gang style brim.
The architectural nightmare built on the corner of Lincoln and Main St. is the perfect example of what this City Council knows about in-fill and the living enviroment. The developer got his money and the Council got their money. Venturans got a red tiled architectural aberration, one of many now popping up all around town.
Our ancestural 3,000 grave cemetery that has been converted to a 'dog park' is the epitome of this Council's disregard for anybody or anything.
Our town is being used for fodder by the New Urbanist company (councilperson), to sell their company's contracts to anyone with the stupidity and public tax monies across the country.
When they've finished and take down their tents, we will be forced to live in the beautiful new urbanism wasteland as green as the London Bridge in Arizona.
Simply carpet-baggers and scallywags.
Posted by Tom_Johnston on April 18, 2008 at 5:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I too would not want to see "concrete corridors" in Ventura City Streets. I grew up in the New York metopolitan area, so I know what those are like.
The VCORD proposition sounds good on the face of it, but breaks down in the analysis.
I'm always leary of this sort of NIMBY citizen movement, but the VCORD initiative has a very curious clause. If passed, it will allow the VCORD Board of Directors to appoint what I read as an overwhelming majority of the new "View Resources Board". VCORD Directors, themselves non-elected (and accountable to few), will choose 23 members of a committee of 26. The remaining three will be appointed by the City, which remains accountable to the election process.
Now this all means that we by pass the City Council, Planning Commission and any other citizen accountable boards or organizations. VCORD is accountable to no one not in their organization.
This is a bad idea. I've posted the link to the VCORD site, and an excerpt from the actual inititive below.
The Link: https://vcord.org/
Relevant sections of the Initiative as posted on the site:
Section 4. Establishment of View Resources Board.
A. Within thirty (30) days following the effective date of this initiative ordinance, a View Resources Board shall be established comprised of 23 members of the Ventura Community.
members. VCORD's Board of Directors shall appoint the community representatives as follows: one representative from the Chamber of Commerce, one representative of Convention and Visitors Bureau, 3 representatives from the West Side View Overlay District; 4 representatives from the East Side View Overlay District; and 10 representatives from the Central View Overlay District, including 2 representatives from the Harbor (in the central district), 2 representatives from Pierpont Beach area, 3 representatives from Midtown South (below Poli), 2 representatives from Midtown North (Above Poli), and 2 representative from Midtown East (northeast of Telegraph.). The City Council shall appoint 1 Councilperson, 1 Planning Commissioner, 1 City staff member from the Community Development Department. The membership of this Board shall be representative of the community and shall include, but not be limited to representatives from the business community, homeowners associations, environmental organizations and individual residents of San Buenaventura.
Posted by Tom_Johnston on April 18, 2008 at 6:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just a thought...would it not have been better for each local "council" to select it's own delegate(s) to the "View Resources Board"? Or....is it better to let VCORD "cherry-pick" its surrogate members??
Note that there is no recourse to reconsider a future "View Board" member. They seem to be there for life....at the sufferance of VCORD..who picked them in the first place.
This smacks of something we'd expect of current Venezuelan or Cuban politics, not Ventura County.
Posted by jill on April 20, 2008 at 9:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
vtaFRUSTRATE,
I am looking for a home to buy right now and am also faced with those two choices: the east end crap condos with soaring HOAs or the single-family detached home. I'm attempting to go with the single-family home as I cannot stomach throwing away my money to an HOA.
We could use alternative housing.
Posted by downtownresident on April 21, 2008 at 7:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ms. Harris fails to recognize that, based on the Census data, that Ventura already has a substantial number of residents who live and work in Ventura. The data I recently saw put us at about 50%. That would be higher than many cities that we would categorize as walkable and bikeable. I walk to work most days and not only enjoy not having to start up my car, but the relaxing mental transition from home to work and vice versa.
I have also heard her in the past talk about the need for a more walkable and transit friendly city. We cannot get there without some investment from new development along the major corridors such as Thompson Boulevard (which is not a pleasant place to walk right now). The City just cannot afford to do it themselves and we don't want to pay more taxes so they can. Also, transit can not get any better unless there is the density and type of housing that supports the urban lifestyle that choice riders would typically live.
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
- Posts that degrade others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or disability.
- Disparaging remarks, abusive language or obscene comments.
- Threats, whether obvious or veiled.
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
There are 15 comments to this article.
Comments are found beneath the Yahoo! ad below.