Reconciling Opposing Forces

April 2024: A couple of posts about streetscape projects that reduce on-street parking, and how to use some tools from Regenerative Practice in those situations.

Post 1: The use of trials for reconciliation

Every streetscape redesign project I’ve worked on, parking has been the most contentious issue.

This Spinoff satire about current design proposals for upper Cuba Street in Wellington captures the situation hilariously (and scathingly).

Trying to encourage mode shift, improve the pedestrian experience, etc., always involves reallocating a bit of limited road space. In the Cuba Street case they’re proposing to remove 20 car parks primarily to widen a busy narrow footpath.

Unsurprisingly, a handful of shop owners are very vocally opposing the changes, out of fear for the impact on their business. These owners are presented as the villains and idiots in this satire, and their behaviour may warrant the caricature.

But the process and communication around such changes often leaves owners like them with no other role to play. All too often it plays out as pedestrian or cyclist versus automobile, with all the cultural and political baggage of that discourse.

(To be clear, I’m not necessarily suggesting that’s the case with this Cuba Street example.)

In Regenerative Practice, one of the principles we learn is that every truly creative act requires a reconciliation between apparently opposing forces. The impulse to create something new or make changes is met with a restraining force that is often experienced as a No, as a negative.

But this negative always comes from a place of love or care, having something of value to protect – which is a very positive sentiment. It only becomes negative as a reaction to a proposal that’s perceived as a threat.

Those wanting to widen the footpath are generally seeking the same outcome as those fighting to keep the car parks: a vibrant and fun shopping and entertainment district. There’s no disagreement about what to achieve, just different opinions on how best to do that.

Trials can be a great way to mitigate fears and take an evidence-based approach to decisions.

Widen the footpath in a cheap and temporary way for a week. Monitor it closely. Talk to people. You can even get electronic transaction data for the street to get quantitative data on the impact to businesses.

Then you can make a longer-term decision (or subsequent trial) based on real evidence from trialling one of your proposed approaches. And you may offer your apprehensive business owners another role to play.

Post 2: On creative solutions

Should you – and how might you – design a place for stakeholders that don’t yet exist?

The Cuba Street article I shared last week got me thinking about a related thorny topic: how can you design a streetscape, civic space or town centre taking a long-term view – when the stakeholders you’re designing with are the current users, residents and business owners?

Nobody would suggest that current business owners shouldn’t be key stakeholders, but what of that lawnmower shop on Cuba Street mentioned in the Spinoff satire?

They sell mowers, chainsaws, wood chippers… things you wouldn’t generally be walking home with. And they do repairs, so have a steady stream of people dropping mowers off.

But they have no off-street parking. Nearby on-street parking could be do-or-die for them.

As that street has developed, however, it has turned squarely into an entertainment precinct and pedestrian haven. Record shops, bookstores, musical instruments, fashion, cafes, restaurants, galleries, hotels.

The mower shop is probably ‘in the wrong place’ now given the other offerings in the block. But they might be locked into a long-term lease, or own the building and the business.

Suggesting that they relocate, or just stop worrying about parking, is not necessarily straightforward or fair.

This is one reason why even a ‘simple’ one block streetscape upgrade should always start with a collaborative place visioning process; conduct basic research to understand who uses the street (& how) and who doesn’t currently use the street but might if…; and incorporate tools that help focus on meeting everyone’s needs e.g. using personas to build empathy.

Such a process won’t necessarily win over the concerned business owner, but should give the Council (or other client) confidence to back a solution that might have a few noisy opponents.

Then, the job becomes trying to broker a creative solution, which could include helping the unfortunate lawnmower shop access other parking nearby or even subsidising them to have a couple nearby off-street car parks for a transition period.

(Why not, if it enables the best streetscape solution?)

Ben van Bruggen and I discussed this topic over a drink last week. He shared an example of a computer repair shop with a similar problem who got support and advice to start a new pickup and delivery service, which grew their business and ultimately meant that they didn’t need an expensive shop front and could move to cheaper premises.

A win for the shop, and for the street which could then benefit from a more active frontage.

(To be clear, I know no specifics of the Cuba St project and have no reason to criticise it; the Spinoff article was just a good launching pad!)