In an open letter from Davis Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Kemble Pope, he endorses the city’s proposal to contract with William McDonough + Partners on a “Vision for Sustainable Davis Economy.”
William McDonough is best known for designing the Ford Motor Company’s plant with a vast green grass roof and more recently with his book Cradle to Cradle, he has, according to Forbes Magazine, “unleashed a design revolution that began examining not just what things look like, but also the chemical makeup of things: water bottles, carpet, countertops.”
“The proposed Vision process with McDonough + Partners will provide an opportunity to think more holistically and deliberately about what we want our economy to look like in the future and what steps need to be taken to ensure we achieve the desired outcomes,” city staff writes.
Kemble Pope argues, “There is no denying that change is in the air both locally and globally. As our planet recovers from the Great Recession, we have the opportunity now to prepare our community for future success. If our community sows the seeds of trust with collaboration, then we will soon reap the benefits in the form of an improved quality of life.”
“For far too long, Davis has been divided against itself along irrational political and special interest lines. We agree on much, but our past disagreements cast a dark shadow over our ability to start afresh focused on our common vision for Davis,” writes Mr. Pope, apparently without a sense of irony.
He continues, “The vast majority of our community places great value on a vibrant downtown, superior public schools, infill densification, transportation choices and environmentally, socially and economically sustainable policies and practices.”
On Sunday, the Vanguard noted the lengthy and concrete proposals already on the table from the Davis Chamber PAC. We ask: why bring in an outsider to do what we have the talent to do within the community? Why have yet another visioning process on top of what has already been done?
We have already had the Davis Economic Health and Prosperity Report, DSIDE Community Forum, the Business Park Land Strategy, and UC Davis Request for Concepts.
The city would argue, “Each of these efforts have touched directly or indirectly on the benefit of having a vision that could help guide the individual and collective goals for economic development in Davis. Most recently, in framing the community outreach process for the CEDS, it became apparent that a well structured and engaging process with the community is needed to establish a shared longterm vision for a sustainable and innovative Davis economy.”
At the same time, it seems the ChamberPAC already has a list of actions they would like to see the council work toward. These include the development of “Nishi/Solano Park/Gateway/downtown area as a mixed-use, innovation district that would provide space for start-ups and tech businesses, as well as much-needed high-density housing, both of which would be in, or in close proximity to, UC Davis and downtown so residents and workers could walk and bike seamlessly between the two.”
Mr. Pope responds, “Do we need help from the outside to move forward to realize our dreams for a better Davis with UC Davis and the business community as fully vested partners? At this point in time, I say without hesitation, ‘Yes!’ “
He adds, “We have experts galore right here in our backyard, but in order to transcend the old divisions we need an honest broker with a fresh perspective.” He notes, “In William McDonough + Partners, we have found a globally renowned firm that shares our community’s values, has a track record of facilitating community consensus, and is skilled at assessing and utilizing existing studies (Climate Action Plan, Prosperity Report, Business Land Park etc etc.).”
But others argue that it is unclear that a guru will have any more success at bridging those divides than anyone else. At the very least, if he comes in on his white horse, puts forth ideas and then leaves, it is unclear what we gain over what we currently have.
As we wrote on Sunday, the idea that we need a William McDonough to come in on his firm’s white horse and offer us some shared vision and then turn around and ride back out of time seems a bit strange.
My understanding is that this idea has been pushed forward by a couple of local business people – like the ones who wrote the ChamberPAC piece, and that the city and campus are lukewarm at best to the idea.
Looking at the list that the ChamberPAC offers up, it seems there is certainly a good start there of concrete projects for consideration.
The community with the homegrown talent to bring us West Village, the first zero net energy development in the nation, and the talent to bring us Village Homes, probably is not in need of William McDonough or his associates to tell it how to innovate.
On the other hand, what is clear is that there are competing visions for how Davis should move forward. At the same time, it is even more clear that there is resistance to change.
The ChamberPAC piece clearly attempts to gain some sort of comfort while at the same time pushing the ChamberPAC’s agenda to the general population. I am not sure writing a series of Op-Eds is the right approach either.
That does not offer a dialogue – the kind of dialogue that is really needed when different groups have different ideas about moving forward.
At the same time, it must be noted that the McDonough idea seems to have been met largely with a gaping yawn from many in the community who have both seen this and done that before.
The bottom line is that if we offer the community some well-thought out, innovative infill projects, then we might have a chance at community buy-in. If we offer them dressed-up peripheral development in the Northwest Quadrant and Mace, we’re going to have a holy war.
From that standpoint, I think that it is time to stop visioning and time to start offering concrete projects that we can debate and then accept or reject on the merits.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]The bottom line is that if we offer the community some well-thought out, innovative infill projects, then we might have a chance at community buy-in.[/quote]
I am not sure that this does represent “the bottom line”. While I favor “well thought out, innovative”infill projects, I am not sure that everyone is in agreement with what is “a well thought out” project. On a previous thread, I was asked by several posters why I would want evidence of the “well thought out nature ” of proposals. It seems to me that the “call for action now” is a rather thinly disguised “call for action I favor”.
But we do not all favor the same actions.
For instance, there are some who are more concerned about the economic impacts, such as some sort of pedestrian shopping area combined with a parking structure, while others emphasize the environmental aspects and favor development that does not provide for or attract more cars downtown. Many proposals are tied to their history of association with one faction or another in town. It is this fractiousness within our community which I see as the main impediment to constructive change. Here is where I see the potential value of a “non aligned” voice or opinion.
While I agree with Robb Davis that it would be great if we as private citizens, voted in our city council and then allowed them to make their best call based on their experience and vision, that does not seem to be the way that we conduct business at this point in time, either in the city, the state, or the nation.
I am not advocating for or against this particular consultant. If the new council is able to transcend the typical
fractiousness ( or high level of personal involvement ; ) depending on your point of view, and take constructive action independently, I think that is fine. If they cannot, or if they find it wiser to involve a non aligned party, I think we should allow them the room to make their choice. After all,we did just elect them.
Good idea to bring in this guy as long as its not on the taxpayers dime. If the Chamber wants to bring him in they should pay for it. Then there is no problem and they can submit his report to the City.
Still pushing the holy war metaphor David. Reprehensibly provocative! Are you the crusader or the infidel David?
[quote]My understanding is that this idea has been pushed forward by a couple of local business people – like the ones who wrote the ChamberPAC piece, and that the city and campus are lukewarm at best to the idea.[/quote]
Who exactly is “lukewarm at best to the idea”? Everyone in the city? Everyone on campus? I doubt it. Ken Hiatt and Sarah Worley wrote the staff report and the staff report certainly seems to favor this approach.
Personally, I think this sounds more like a push for Davis to “go green” than it is a visioning process, but that is just my sense of things…
From the Davis Enterprise:
[i]”If the council approves the agreement, McDonough will be authorized to carry out [b]the first phase of a five-phase plan[/b], developing an “initial road map” that defines a clear path that the city could follow toward its economic and environmental goals.
Following the road map, city staff would return to the council with a refined visioning process and funding approach before proceeding with the subsequent phases, which include inventory, definition of principles and goals, opportunity assessment and implementation/optimization.
The [b]$15,000 contract[/b] would be shared equally by the city, UC Davis and a handful of local business supporters.”[/i]
So to clarify: this is a proposal to enter into what will become a long-term contract relationship with this consultant (‘first phase’…’initial road map’).
The $15,000 (of which the city will provide $5000?) will pay to develop a proposal for future consulting. Overall, I would expect this consulting contract to run into tens of thousands of dollars by the time the whole process is done.
In my conversation with Mayor Krovoza, I was led to believe that the city was not inclined to hire McDonough further.
“Personally, I think this sounds more like a push for Davis to “go green” than it is a visioning process, but that is just my sense of things… “
I don’t think you are correct. I was told that the push for this is coming from two prominent business owners.
“Ken Hiatt and Sarah Worley wrote the staff report and the staff report certainly seems to favor this approach.”
I was told Hiatt and Worley were not fond of this plan.
“My understanding is that this idea has been pushed forward by a couple of local business people – like the ones who wrote the ChamberPAC piece…” -David Greenwald
This is a very strange assertion. The ChamberPAC is creating and executing strategies to achieve Chamber Board approved objectives. Furthermore, its activities are supervised by the Chamber Government Relations Committee. And finally, the DDBA liason to the Chamber PAC reports to the DDBA Board monthly. It’s definitely not “a couple of local business people” pushing ideas.
-Michael Bisch, Chamber PAC
Okay, I’ll lay a wager that nothing more comes of this than the other five iterations and visions that have come forward?
Well, at this point it’s completely unclear to me who wants this or what we’d be getting.
It appears the Mayor Pro Tem wants this, I got a strong response to a question. Others seem a lot less gung ho.
Here is an idea: have a community wide contest for ideas. Then have the council vote on which ideas are best and award those people 500.00.
My guess is we would generate the same amount of “good ideas” as we would hiring a consulting firm.
Amazing that with all these young people leading the charge for a paradigm shift, they don’t seem to understand the new economy: crowd source & community source for creative ideas.
Paying consultants and so-called experts is EXACTLY the old paradigm!!!
[quote]”I was told that the push for this is coming from two prominent business owners.”[/quote]Who told you this? Which two “prominent business owners” did he/she say are pushing this?
Doby Fleeman of Ace spoke last night.
To dmg: Based on what I heard last night at the CC meeting, not one single person, including from the CC, staff, UCD were “lukewarm” or not in favor of this idea…