Mark Plotz

Mark Plotz is the director of the National Center for Bicycling and Walking, a resident program of the Project for Public Spaces. What that means, in practice, is that Mark is the man who makes Pro Walk/Pro Bike: Pro Place happen! Mark’s been poring over the results of last September’s conference in Long Beach, CA, and we recently had the chance to sit down with him when he made the trek up to HQ, to get a sense of how people responded to the new “Pro Place” focus. Mark also offered some teasers about the lead-up to Pro Walk/Pro Bike: Pro Place 2014, which will take place in Pittsburgh, PA next fall.

What were some of the trends that you saw in terms of what conference-goers voted for with their feet?

The good news is that Placemaking sessions fared very well, which is encouraging because it shows that the conference theme of “Pro Place” was resonating with people. One session that did very well was led by Victor Dover and John Massengale, who spoke about street design where we’re not just talking about paint and asphalt and dimensions, but really paying attention to context and creating beautiful streets.

Women and cycling was a popular subject. I could definitely see a lot of broad interest in making cycling a lot more reflective of this diverse country that we live in. A lot of bike advocacy has been geared toward the alpha-male bicyclists for too long, and now there’s a growing realization that there’s a whole new population that’s really interested in cycling and ready for alternatives to the car. We’re trying to be supportive of that in how we plan for the next conference, because people are indicating that they’re really interested in taking advocacy in that new direction.

Building on that advocacy theme–as much as people were coming to the last Pro Walk/Pro Bike and learning about Placemaking, us Placemakers all have a lot to learn from biking and walking advocates about how to run a campaign. Can you talk more about that?

Fred talks a lot about Zealous Nuts in his presentations, and there are no more zealous or nutty people than bike advocates! We’re very good at organizing, and showing up to meetings, and writing congressional offices. We’re a highly motivated crew. I think that Placemakers can learn a lot from rubbing elbows with bike advocates.

Bikers are sort of tribal. When you get a bunch of them in a room together, the conversation always seems to gravitate to the last a**hole you had an encounter with out on the road. That’s one of the things that really bonds bikers together: we’re out there and we don’t have much in the way of protection, so we’re dependent on the goodwill and skill of drivers, and also the DOT to give us a safe place to ride. So safety is a big shared concern.

You have to take the long view. The first Pro Walk/Pro Bike conference was in 1980, and it was about a hundred people in Asheville, NC. We had 900 people in Long Beach this year. From what I’ve been told by those who were there, the folks who showed up in Asheville were a bunch of idealists, working outside the system. But through the years, biking has been institutionalized, so a lot of those advocates became the first state bike/ped coordinators, and later the first local bike/ped coordinators. Over time, they were co-opted into the transportation establishment, which is a great thing.

There are still advocates out there, because that bike/ped coordinator still needs support from the public, and to know that people want this stuff. So advocates give him or her the cover. And I wonder if maybe that’s where Placemakers need to go now: to organize as advocates, develop a common agenda, and then hopefully get co-opted into transportation, governance, all of these places where our government already spends money but builds a bunch of crap.

How did that co-opting happen? How did these folks go from being the idealists outside of the system to being the inmates running the asylum, so to speak?

I would say it was ISTEA in 1991. It helps if the Feds are saying “look, if you want to get this money to build trails and other enhancement projects, you need to have a state bike/ped coordinator.” That was a major boost for the movement. But there was demand for that legislation. Back when Dan Burden was hired on as the first state bike/ped coordinator in Florida, biking was pretty popular. The Feds saw demand, and they wanted to answer it.

Any other thoughts on where PWPB is heading in 2014, and how it will continue to evolve? 

Well, of course, I think that we have the smartest conference attendees out there! And we function best and are most effective when we can demonstrate that the improvements we’re arguing for benefit a community. That when you rightsize a street, for instance, you’re not just doing good things for people who walk and bike, you’re adding value back to the property that the road had subtracted from. Placemaking is always going to be a part of it, if we’re smart. We’re seeing that in the attendance in 2012, and that’s going to continue in 2014.

The people in Pittsburgh are very excited. One of the reasons that they wanted to host the 2014 conference is that they want to kickstart their bike/ped plan implementation, but they also want to do more with Placemaking. I’m looking forward to doing interventions around the city. We’re going to do a warm-up event in the fall of 2013, and I hope to see a lot of good things come out of that, a lot of project ideas. PPS has budgeted for staff involvement with the city.

Pittsburgh is a great laboratory for Placemaking. That city has a lot of people in foundations that are interested in place, they’ve got a burgeoning tech sector, and they’ve got a couple of great people, like the guys from Walnut Capital who re-purposed an old Nabisco plant…you don’t have to sell these folks on the principles of mixed-use neighborhoods! They want more of this. They want to get developers there so they can evangelize to them and get city councilors there to see that this stuff works, and that there’s demand. That’s exciting.

Coming from the bike advocacy world, I believe that we’ve made a key mistake in thinking that federal legislation is the be-all and end-all of what’s going to make this country bicycle-friendly and walkable. But it’s more complex than that, especially when you’ve got a Congress that’s not interested in solving big problems. It’s going to be incumbent on us to engage with the private sector. It helps when you’ve got people who’ve shown that this can be tremendously lucrative, and that people want it.

Next stop: Pittsburgh! / Photo: mismisimos via Flickr

Pittsburgh’s brand may be rusty, but like every city, it has its bright spots / Photo: Brendan Crain

“At the heart of my argument,” writes Jim Russell in his response to last Wednesday’s blog post, “is the fact that [Placemaking] initiatives are intrinsically place-centric. Instead of place-centrism, I’m looking at talent migration through a lens of people-centrism…I’m convinced that placemaking is useful, but not for talent attraction/retention. People move for purposes of personal economic development.”

Focusing on talent attraction and retention is what leads to gentrification, the phenomena that people who voice concerns about Placemaking are most often trying to avoid. There is an oft-voiced belief today that there is a finite amount of talent and creativity available in the world, and that cities must compete to draw creative people away from rival communities in order to thrive. But truly great places are not built from scratch to attract people from elsewhere; the best places have evolved into dynamic, multi-use destinations over time: years, decades, centuries. These places are reflective of the communities that surround them, not the other way around. Placemaking is, ultimately, more about the identification and development of local talent, not the attraction of talent from afar.

A key difference in definitions here is that what some would call ‘place’, I (and others) would call branding. There’s an oceans-wide gap between those two things. “Young, college-educated talent is moving from decaying Pittsburgh (brain drain) to cool, hip Austin (brain gain),” writes Russell, explaining the Creative Class concept. “It’s a place-centric understanding of talent relocation.” In fact, what he’s describing is a brand-centric understanding. Pittsburgh’s brand is rusty (heh); Austin’s brand gleams with the silvery-green gloss of techno-optimism. But to categorize entire cities as singular places gets you nowhere at all. Pittsburgh has its bright spots, and Austin has its warts.

Looking at cities from what Jan Gehl calls the “airplane scale” is what allows proponents of cut-and-paste urbanism to do what the Modernists did, using lifestyle instead of architecture. Rather than suggesting that the city be reorganized into tower blocks amidst grassy lawns, today’s one-size-fits-allers call for cafes and artisan markets. They are presuming that the city as a whole will benefit from the indiscriminate application of a specific set of amenities. It won’t. Neighborhoods need to define their priorities for themselves; in so doing, they often discover that there are untapped opportunities to grow their own local economies, without needing to import talent from elsewhere. Even if your city’s brand is busted, your community is still capable of re-building itself. As Jane Jacobs once argued, “the best cities are actually federations of great neighborhoods.”

“The best cities are actually federations of great neighborhoods.” — Jane Jacobs / Photo: Brendan Crain

When cities jump into the talent attraction death match arena, they often wind up losing to win: they spend millions of dollars on insane tax incentives to woo corporate headquarters and factories; they drop millions more on fancy amenities that haven’t really been asked for, in the hopes that (since it worked elsewhere) each bauble will magically cause a crowd of American Apparel-wearing, Mac-toting graphic designers to materialize out of thin air; they sell their souls in order to “create” jobs that are, in fact, merely shifted over from somewhere else.

If “people develop, not places” as Russell argues, economic development and gentrification are one and the same. If your strategy for improving local economic prospects is to drink some other city’s milkshake, you won’t get very far. It’s economic cannibalization. To really grow an economy, opportunity has to be developed organically within each community, and that requires that people dig in and improve their neighborhoods, together, for the sake of doing so–not convincing Google to open a new office down the road.

As Aaron Renn put it in a recent post on The Urbanophile, “We need to be asking the question of what exactly we are doing to benefit the people without college degrees beyond assuring them that if we attract more people with college degrees everything will be looking up for them. We need to sell ideas like transit in a way that isn’t totally dependent on items like ‘enabling us to attract the talent we need for the 21st century economy.’ If I read half as much about providing economic opportunity and facilitating upward social mobility for the poor and middle classes as I do about green this, that, or the other thing, we’d be getting somewhere.”

Places aren’t about the 21st century economy. They are about the people who inhabit and develop them. They are the physical manifestations of the social networks upon which our global economy is built. Likewise, Place-making is not about making existing places palatable to a certain class of people. It is a process by which each community can develop place capital by bringing people together to figure out what competitive edge their community might have, and then working to capitalize on that edge and improve local economic prospects in-place, rather than trying to import opportunity from elsewhere.

Decades ago we, as a society, detached people from place. We decided that places should be shaped based on theories and ideas, rather than the needs of people who already lived, worked, and played there. The development of people and places is the same process. If we keep trying to separate the two, our cities will remain divided.

How do you create a magnetic public destination like Luxembourg Gardens? Read on! / Photo: PPS

In a recent blog post, entrepreneur-turned-VC Mark Suster wrote about the necessary ingredients for a city trying o develop a successful start-up community. His advice seemed applicable to any community that’s trying to create a strong local sense of place, so we’ve retrofitted his recommendations to speak broadly to people who are working to transform their public spaces into magnetic destinations that are reflective of the diverse communities that surround them.

[✓] A Strong Pool of Zealous Nuts – If you’re reading this, chances are you’re either a zealous nut, or you have the potential to be one. You’re passionate about place, about your neighborhood, your streets, your favorite park. Zealous nuts are the local leaders who have a vision of how great their community can be, and who want to get all of their neighbors involved in making it happen. They also have the tenacity and patience to stick with that vision, even when fighting an uphill battle. They understand that half of the fun of Placemaking is getting to know their neighbors through discussion, debate, and collaboration. As we’ve seen time and again, great Placemaking projects can almost always be traced back to one or two driven, dedicated people who are “nuts” about their community.

[✓] Place Capital – Great places generate more value for the communities in which they are located than they actually cost to create. These places draw people into the daily life of their communities, encouraging local investment–both financial (through shopping at local stores and markets) and social. Individual actions toward the improvement of and participation in public spaces are like little investments in Place Capital. If people have opportunities to take part in shaping their public spaces, they will feel more connected to their community, and will be more likely to go the extra mile to keep those spaces attractive and welcoming. This has a magnetic effect, creating a distinctive local character and turning a location into a destination.

[✓] Killer Events – Suster’s explanation of the importance of events is spot-on for much more than just the tech community: events bring people together, and get them talking. This builds social capital, and does so in a way that is specifically connected to place. Great events often celebrate unique aspects of a local community, and throw them into high relief–the example of SXSW in Austin is perfect, as it highlights the creative and tech-focused community of people that already exists in Austin, and does so out in the streets. The informal and entertaining vibe puts people at ease, and strengthens the local sense of identity as people mix and mingle.

Austin’s Sixth Street bustles during the SXSW festival / Photo: John Rogers via Flickr

[✓] Access to Great Advocates – Chatter about Placemaking is on the rise, but not everyone who uses the term is talking about really engaging local communities to facilitate the creation of places that truly reflect the people that they serve. To create a great public destination, it’s helpful for a community to have access to advocacy organizations that really “get it,” and are proactive in working with locals to help them articulate their needs and claim their place. Look at the Metropolitan Planning Council in Chicago, or (thinking regionally) the Michigan Municipal League. These groups are on a mission to make sure that Placemaking stays an inclusive process, rather than becoming an empty buzzword that is attached to projects that reflect top-down planning and design visions rather than local culture.

[✓] Motivated Champions – 90% of the success of a public space is in its management. For public spaces and districts with access to a large pool of resources, the involvement of a dedicated community development org or business improvement district can be extremely helpful in making sure that the buzz around a space stays strong. New York has dozens of BIDs that manage major squares and shopping districts. As downtowns around the country have surged in recent decades, groups like the Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership and Downtown Houston have helped to guide growth, manage important hubs of public life, and spread the word about what’s going on in the heart of town.

Neighbors work together to brighten their Portland neighborhood through City Repair’s Intersection Repair project / Photo: City Repair via Flickr

But your champions don’t necessarily need a lot of money if they’ve got a lot of heart. Many spaces are managed by volunteer organizations made up of community members who help to keep a space clean, and “program” it with a steady mix of informal activity. Often times, smaller groups can build capacity over time and scale up; Portland’s well-regarded City Repair started out as a group of concerned neighbors who just wanted a safer street corner, and today they’ve revolutionized community planning across their city!

[✓] Local Press / Websites / Organizational Tools – Great public spaces are stages for public life. In addition to major events like parades, festivals, and other public gatherings, they’re perfect places for local media organizations to tap into public opinion on the key issues of the day. Public space managers, whether professional or volunteer, should work hard to build a strong relationship with local media outlets that cover what’s going on in the city or region. People attract people, so the more often folks see and hear reminders of how vibrant and exciting a given place is, the more likely they are to travel out of their way to check out the action. In the long term, building strong media partnerships also creates an active local culture that gets more people off the couch.

[✓] Alumni Outreach – Here’s an intriguing item on Suster’s list that isn’t necessarily obvious when you think generally about creating public destinations. If you live in a neighborhood with some history and are trying to turn a place around, it might be helpful to do a bit of research to learn whether there are some famous past residents who might have fond memories of that space when they were growing up in the neighborhood. Great places inspire the kind of visceral memories that spur people to action. Find out who your neighborhood’s “alumni” are, and you might find some powerful allies in your effort to restore a down-at-heel site to its former glory.

[✓] Wins – “At the end of the day,” writes Suster, “no amount of ‘planning’ can build a community that is seen as a success – it can just be a contributor.” This is the idea at the heart of the Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper approach to public space management. You can plan and plan, but doing is absolutely essential. If you don’t have the funds for a new playground, get local organizations to donate odds and ends and have kids from the neighborhood build their own temporary adventure playground. If there’s a blank wall that you’re not quite ready to cover with a permanent mural, host a chalk party to get up some temporary, community-sourced public art. Small wins today build momentum that can be critical to achieving bigger wins tomorrow.

[✓] Recycled Place Capital / Repeat Placemakers – When people participate in a Placemaking process and see firsthand how powerful an effect it has, both on their public spaces and on their own lives, they often get hooked! This has a spillover effect, meaning that one great public destination can wind up influencing an entire city, or even a whole region. The Power of Ten concept posits that you need at least ten things to do in a public space for it to be a lively, multi-use destination. To have a great neighborhood you, need at least ten of these public destinations. For a great city, you need at least ten great neighborhoods.

Making a great place requires lots of participation from lots of people. That creates lots of new Placemakers, and inspires a whole new group of zealous nuts. Placemaking can change the way that people think about their role within their community, and inspire them to be more intentional about investing in Place Capital not just in their own back yard, but all over town.

Photos like Jackson Square in New Orleans set the bar high / Photo: PPS

[✓] Flagship Public Spaces – Barcelona has Parc Guell, Vancouver has Granville Island, and New Orleans has Jackson Square. These iconic spaces set the bar high, and give neighborhoods in their respective cities something to shoot for. If your city has a flagship space (or, if you’re very lucky, a few of them), tap into the public enthusiasm for the sense of place that exists around that location, and remind people that any site can become a beloved destination if it is responsive to the community in which it is located.