Paris, Cafe Life, Placemaking, 8664, Bridges and Food

I have been think a lot about the prospect of Louisville covering its downtown with concrete. I'm sure what most of the people on this forum would love to see in the food and social scene is what is described in this article: http://www.cooltownstudios.com/. This kind of leisurely dining and socializing makes a place livable and real. If we follow the ideas of the 8664 folks, things can look like this (http://www.8664.org/2009/06/welcome-to-louisville-part-ii.html. Compare the two images here: http://www.8664.org/2009/06/what-will-louisvilles-future-look-like.html Which idea for the future of the city is more conducive to a vibrant 'cafe life' - to the health of the community, its people, its atmosphere, its outdoor dining?

If they expand 64 on the waterfront I'm moving to Honduras...

I can't imagine anyone in the food business - or just interested in food life - not being crazed by this issue.

Actually, I kind of take the middle road on this subject. I firmly believe the east end needs to be completed as soon as possible. I really don't agree with the 8664 proposal because I don't believe it's a good solution for downtown Louisville because of flooding issues. I also don't think the proposals for a second downtown bridge is appropriate. Making some minor revisions to the existing road system and making the east end bridge the preferred route is what I think is the best solution for Louisville. This is also the least expensive of any of the ideas that has been proposed.

We certainly need to maintain a vibrant downtown dining scene but we also need to ensure that motorists have easy access to downtown.

As for the "pictures" provided by 8664, they're just artists renditions and are purposely made to make their solution look better so they have to be taken with a grain of salt. Downtown will never look like what they say it could.

Of course there are details, flaws, issues that have not been addressed, but we all know the whole 8664 package will never be adopted. What 8664.org has done, though, is provide an alternative vision of what this city is about, what it could be, where it is headed.

Several years ago we, as a country, had two visions to choose from, though most of us didn't realized it at the time. One side said We will build these bloated, ugly, thirsty cars called SUVs, and we will drive these SUVs far out into the suburbs and exurbs to houses on treeless tracts where there used to be woods and farms, and these houses, too, will be bloated and ugly and hungry. We will demand roads to get to our houses and to larger and larger malls, and to Cheesecake Factory and P.F. Chang's and Hooters. It will no longer matter what the name of that city off in the distance is. America will be One. We will have manufacturing jobs and construction jobs and service jobs. It will be Prosperity.

There was another, quieter, less respected vision. It saw mass transit and efficient cars and greater concentration of population in renewed cities with senses of place and history. It saw lofts and condos in green buildings and old, restored buildings, and open, treed spaces, and independent businesses and unique restaurants and cafes and bars and an active, aesthetic social life with people meeting people and talking.

The first vision won, of course, and then nearly destroyed us. The second vision was made real in a few towns and cities around the country - and now they are leading the way.

Louisville is faced with a similar set of visions, a similar choice. The Bridges Project and the support of Cordish are part of an old, now discredited SUV vision that places the movement of cars and trucks above the psychic well-being of citizens. The 8664 people are offering another way to see our city. We are being watched, and people are waiting for our decision, waiting to laugh at us:

http://www.ceosforcities.org/blog/entry/2516

http://www.architectmagazine.com/industry-news.asp?sectionID=1006&articleID=985911

http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/09/22/americas-least-wanted-highways/

I like my bloated, ugly house in the suburbs. Never drove an SUV though. Does that make me quasi evil?

The first vision won, of course, and then nearly destroyed us.

How exactly were we nearly destroyed? DD

Uh, the mortgage crisis, the destruction of the auto industry...

Ken, while I'd agree that times are tough for a lot of people, and that the auto industry is in dire staits, I think we as a city and country are far from destruction. DD

The sky is falling....the sky is falling

I'll agree that my word choice was a bit blunt and imprecise (although I did say "nearly destroyed"), but my main point still stands: the lifestyle symbolized by the SUV, and the SUV itself, were part of the problem we are now trying to correct. If we are going to change things moving forward, it has to mean a change in our attitude towards transportation, home, space, place, community.

I have to thank Robin for not nixing what looks like a non-food discussion, but part of my underlying argument is that foodiesmust be concerned with how people come together to eat, where their food comes from and how it gets here, the architecture of the buildings in which they eat, the atmosphere they breathe, the ambient light and sound and textures around them, the meaning of the spaces in which they dine. If it were only about eating, we'd just swap recipes.

Wow!
Just the thought of folks driving SUV's in the suburbs ruins your enjoyment of dinner?!?!?!

I've found that most folks that are so vehemently against suburbs and SUV's do not have kids. Highly dense populations in cities can be great fun, if you are single and your biggest concern is where to meet friends for dinner and drinks. It's a lot harder to raise kids in the city with sky high rents, with only public transportation, and with inconvenient and expensive markets.

That's why these cool big central cities are typically populated by the wealthy, DINKs, or single people that don't need a lot of space.

How about we all subscribe to the "Live and let live" philosophy? Or "Different strokes for different folks"?

Your plea to Live and Let Live implies that our economic choices have no consequences. They do. The further out people live, the more they live in places where they must drive to everything, the more they use inefficient cars, the greater the pull on all our resources, and the worse (especially in a valley like ours) the effect on our air.

Do I expect everyone to live in a downtown area? Nope. I don't. I live in St. Matthews, an old suburb now part of the Metro. It is a good, old-fashioned neighborhood. My son and his family (including two little kids) live here, too. An amazing number of retail shops, everyday retail shops, good restaurants, are within a walk, a bike ride, or a nickle's worth of gas. I lived half of my life in Rochester NY, where my wife and I raised two sons. Our kids played in the neighborhood and we could walk to shops. I taught in a city school and my kids went to public schools. It didn't feel like any kind of sacrifice.

I understand the pull of the suburbs, and I don't want to demonize those who live there. What I want to do is call people's attention to the direction change can take. The more we make our downtown and surrounding neighborhoods livable and attractive, the more it benefits all of us. Those DINKs and singles are the coming lifeblood of a city. They help the economy, create jobs, support businesses and the arts. More and more, they won't come if the downtown area sucks, if there is no cafe life, no scene. I'm 63, and I want those creative young people here - downtown, in my 'hood, in places where no one wanted to live. I want their energy around me.

Here's yet another something to ponder: http://www.architectmagazine.com/industry-news.asp?sectionID=1006&articleID=985911

I've found that most folks that are so vehemently against suburbs and SUV's do not have kids.

Interesting. One of the most interesting shifts of the past 15 years or so was the shift from minivans, vehicles that met all the needs of suburban families, to SUVs, vehicles overbuilt for the needs of suburban families (4 wheel drive, heavier/higher vehicle, worse mileage, more horsepower than usually needed, etc.) because minvans were no longer cool.

SUVs are great vehicles for certain needs: frequent off-road driving, towing heavy loads, hauling large payloads. I've never figured the utility of trading in the Caravan for an Excursion and then using it to haul kids to soccer practice.

Interesting. One of the most interesting shifts of the past 15 years or so was the shift from minivans, vehicles that met all the needs of suburban families, to SUVs, vehicles overbuilt for the needs of suburban families (4 wheel drive, heavier/higher vehicle, worse mileage, more horsepower than usually needed, etc.) because minvans were no longer cool.

SUVs are great vehicles for certain needs: frequent off-road driving, towing heavy loads, hauling large payloads. I've never figured the utility of trading in the Caravan for an Excursion and then using it to haul kids to soccer practice.

In general, minivans do not get better mileage than SUVs. Some do, but some SUV get better mileage than minivans. SUV's are typically better for towing though. So there are practical reasons to pick one over a mini van beyond gas mileage.

I never owned an SUV, don't want one. It's fine that you don't want one. Who are we to tell someone what kind of vehicle they should drive? I just don't understand why they are demonized. When did America become such a country so full of busybodies worried about the personal choices of over folks?