Looking forward, looking back: Howard Decker at TEDxRochester
Jacobs argues that current development patterns are economically unsustainable, citing examples like suburban supermarkets and massive parking lots, and recommends looking back at the economic model of 1918 Rochester—which was dense and locally centered—to build a future focused on self-sufficiency and walkability. He proposes three immediate actions: go local, change transportation habits, and become active urban advocates. ## Speakers & Context - **Speaker:** An architect and Urban designer. - **Topic:** Critique of contemporary urban and regional economics, arguing that cities must build upon a sound economic foundation to be usable. - **Critique of prevailing thought:** Strongly disagrees with the sentiment that "Rochester 2.0 is about looking forward Not Looking Back." ## Theses & Positions - Cities must be built on a sound economic foundation; otherwise, they cannot be usable. - Current sprawl development patterns are economically damaging, costing more to maintain than the value they provide. - The economic structure of the past (e.g., 1918 Rochester) was superior because the local and middle-ground commerce was anchored within the city, meaning capital stayed local. - Replicating the past is not the goal, but studying it is necessary to learn about what "sustainability" and "self-sufficiency" looked like. - A new pattern for city life is required to avoid intensifying fiscal, social, and environmental urban crises. ## Concepts & Definitions - **Sprawl development:** Characterized by development patterns that are economically costly relative to the value they offer. - **Foreground of commerce:** Refers to small-scale business and local commerce that served the neighborhoods and downtown. - **Middle Ground of commerce:** Refers to Rochester-based medium-sized employers. - **Background:** Refers to the large businesses (e.g., University of Rochester, Xerox). - **Self-sufficiency:** A key component of both environmental and economic sustainability that must guide future planning. - **Urban Drama:** The intensifying combination of fiscal, social, and environmental issues plaguing modern urban centers. ## Mechanisms & Processes - **Economic Measurement:** Analyzing the cost of maintenance vs. the value generated by current development projects (e.g., Inner Loop). - **Urban Decay Cycle:** Modern practices (like auto-dominated retail and sprawl) lead to dwindling public services, budget gaps, and declining local economies. - **Proposed Solution Model (1918):** A dense, walkable city with strong local commerce (foreground) supported by regional employers (middle ground) and large institutions (background). - **Required Future Action:** A shift in mindset to investigate past sustainability models rather than merely looking ahead. ## Timeline & Sequence - **1918:** Dated aerial photograph of Franklin Square at the intersection of Andrews and Franklin streets, demonstrating an ideal, bustling, and well-connected city. - **1922:** Mentioned alongside the 1918 view, referencing the intersection of Main and State. - **Today (The Present):** Characterized by suburban overdevelopment, increasing automotive dependence, and failing infrastructure. - **Historical Economic Data:** Unemployment in Rochester was less than half of today's rate; federal expenditures were $720 million a year compared to today's pegged $3.6 trillion. ## Named Entities - **Rochester:** The central location under discussion. - **Franklin Square:** Location featured in a 1918 aerial photograph at Andrews and Franklin streets. - **Andrews and Franklin streets:** Intersection mentioned. - **Main and State:** Intersection mentioned. - **Wagman's on East Avenue:** Specific example cited for potential local redevelopment. - **Kendrick Road interchanges at I 390:** Specific infrastructure project mentioned ($100 million state/federal funding). - **University of Rochester:** Major local institution. - **Unity Healthcare, Rochester General, Xerox:** Examples of large "Background" businesses. - **Ogleon Works:** Example of a "Middle Ground" employer (cited as insufficiently). - **Henrietta and West Fall roads:** Location of the Citygate Costco project. - **Washington, Albany:** Referenced as external sources of required funding/support, implying local self-reliance is lacking. ## Numbers & Data - Annual federal expenditures today: **$3.6 trillion**. - Historical federal expenditures: **$720 million** (in the early 1900s). - Estimated savings from reduced driving: **$31 billion per year** (if all Americans drove one mile less daily). - Cost comparison: Current infrastructure maintenance costs are noted as exceeding the cost of redevelopment. - Percentage of site at Costco: **More than half** dedicated to parking. ## Examples & Cases - **Wagman's:** Cited as a potential "Urban Grocery" prototype to invite shoppers from the sidewalks, but was replaced by a larger "Suburban Supermarket." - **Kendrick Road Interchange:** A $100 million state and federally funded project intended to facilitate high car volume, leading to more auto-dominated development and thousands of parking spaces. - **Costco Project:** Located at Henrietta and West Fall roads, resulting in a massive site dominated by parking and lacking pedestrian access or connection to historic/natural resources. - **1918 Rochester:** Depicted as a "dense, walkable bustling with life and far more sustainable" contrast to today. ## Tools, Tech & Products - **Aerial photograph:** Used as primary evidence source for 1918 Rochester. - **Car system:** A suggested alternative for connecting the city (a six-mile long street car system). ## References Cited - **Rochester 2.0:** A concept mentioned from Gary Jacobs' presentation, which the speaker directly critiques. ## Trade-offs & Alternatives - **Sprawl Development:** High cost, low value, auto-dependent, poor walkability. - **Inner Loop Infill:** Currently prioritized for redevelopment, despite high maintenance costs. - **Alternative to Sprawl:** A dense, walkable, locally centered commercial model, reminiscent of the early 1900s. - **Transportation Trade-off:** Current infrastructure prioritizes car volume/parking over walkability. ## Counterarguments & Caveats - The speaker acknowledges that the "golden age" of the past was not perfect, stating it "was messy and it had all kinds of problems." - The speaker admits that the current state of the city represents a pattern of making mistakes "for a long long time." ## Conclusions & Recommendations - The primary focus must shift from looking only forward to learning from the economic sustainability of the past. - **Recommendation 1: Go local.** - **Recommendation 2: Travel differently** (e.g., dramatically reducing driving miles). - **Recommendation 3: Become activists and advocates** for the city by engaging with its meaningful past. ## Implications & Consequences - Failing to address economic unsustainability will lead to continued fiscal and social strain on the city. - Adopting localized, walkable, and diverse commercial models could restore economic stability and community vibrancy. ## Verbatim Moments - *"Rochester 2.0 is about looking forward Not Looking Back"* (Quoted, but immediately refuted). - *"Our favored pattern of spraw development costs us more than we can afford costs us more than any real value that it offers for our community."* - *"it costs us more to maintain the damn thing than it will cost us to fill it in"* (Referring to the Inner Loop). - *"the bigs University of Rochester Wegman's uh Unity Healthcare Rochester General Xerox and others"* (Listing large anchors). - *"our Middle Ground of Commerce and our foreground of Commerce are tied to International and National chains and franchises"* (Describing the economic leak). - *"In those days unemployment in Rochester was less than half of what it is today"* (Statistical contrast). - *"we need a new pattern for our city life"* (Call for fundamental structural change). - *"what can we build Envision or construct that preserves and restores the best that we have ever been"* (The central question for the future). - *"if every American drove one mile less a day we would save $31 billion dollar a year in fuel and in infrastructure costs"* (Quantifiable impact of change).