It can be hard to realize how entrenched and polarized some arguments have become. Then someone witty comes along & turns the argument on it’s head.
That is what happened today when THE FRESNAN (who we’ve highlighted before) wrote a fantastic satire of a post that throws all the much debated changes to the Fulton Mall up North to the River Park pedestrian mall. Simple by changing the context we see the 40 year old argument anew.
The comments are an integral part of the post because predictably readers took it seriously.
Our hats are off to you Mike a blog well done.
I agree, Mikey did a great job with that post. On a serious note though, I think it brings up a whole different issue with the growth patterns in our city & the American West: planned obsolescence vs. sustainability. It’s not hard to imagine a day when River Park is the victim of the very process which led to its creation and success. Whether it’s subdivisions or shopping centers, the sprawl approach to development is the very definition of non-sustainable, and is inherently flawed. Suburban sprawl is driven by flight from the “inner” city and its “issues” and the notion that newer is always better. The urban frontier continues to march outward, as these issues never go away, they just continue to grow outward at the same rate as the sprawl. Or even faster.
Because you could also argue that the process actually feeds on itself like a wildfire. That’s because this type of sprawl onto cheap farm land artificially devalues existing commercial and residential property by increasing the new supply faster than the market would otherwise support solely by demand driven by regional economic growth. This devaluation fuels further neighborhood decline and spurs on more sprawl! The result is a community that grows faster physically than it does economically. Just look at all the vacant supermarkets and strip malls throughout Fresno and Clovis, even before the Great Recession of 2008/2009. We probably have enough supermarket square footage in this area to support a city twice this size, so it’s no wonder that so many of those square feet are vacant.
So while it might not happen in the next decade, it’s not hard to imagine the day when River Park is just as passe as Manchester Center is today. Across the San Joaquin River you will see a new “community” of Rio Mesa, home to 28,000 homes and over 100,000 residents, over hundreds of acres of new sprawl. There will be a new “lifestyle” shopping center of course, and all of the amenities that those people fleeing the “inner city” of Friant and Fort Washington are looking for. And the process continues.
Thanks for the linkage sir and for being the first person to ever use my non-logo logo for anything.
It is a great post and had me laughing. However, I thinnk that turning the arguement another way illustrates why closing our main street to traffic hasn’t worked. Imagine asking Clovis to close Pollasky. Visalia to close Main. Imagine if the new Tower streetscape plan called for closing Olive as opposed to the traffic circles. Now think about closing Higuerra in SLO or Colorado Street in Pasadena.
Main streets function well as main streets. Making our main street (Fulton) more pedestrian-friendly is better than pedestrian exclusive.
I agree one-hundred percent, Craig. Well put.