Despite the fact that it's touted as a basic ingredient for marital bliss, world peace and generally getting along, I'm not ordinarily a fan of compromise. That special give-and-take that makes the world go around too often reeks of mediocrity and the tit-for-tat attitude that has ruined politics, among other things, in this country. However, there are special occasions where compromise simply must be urged upon disparate factions which can no longer see the forest for the trees. Or, as the case may be, the living and working for the live/work space.
That's right, Santa Fe is so worked up about live/work space-some people excited, others appalled-that it's a built-in development principle for trendy, progressive, mixed-use developments like Aldea de Santa Fe and Oshara Village and also a time bomb that's threatening the momentum on our (we the citizens of Santa Fe) Railyard property. At a June 27 Public Works Committee meeting city councilors missed an opportunity to display leadership and give clear guidance regarding live/work on the Railyard by telling contentious parties to quit their whining, moaning and machinating and move forward together as a cohesive community.
But before we get into the details, what the hell is live/work space? It was apparent from the confused "oohs and ahhhs" during last week's Design Week charette on live/work spaces for creative professionals that Santa Feans have had their heads buried in the adobe for too long. Living in an idyllic City Different ripe with tradition is one thing. Not "giving a damn how they do it in New York" I'm all in favor of. But being entirely unfamiliar with the primary mechanism of urban redevelopment over the past 25 years is just plain ridiculous.
No wonder everyone is always calling any big room in Santa Fe a "New York-style loft." It's hard to avoid the storied history of SoHo, but apparently the less glamorous explosions of Brooklyn, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles, Portland, Seattle, Tacoma, Tucson, St. Louis, New Orleans, Denver and Albuquerque are more specialized histories. It works like this: As technologies advance and the fortunes of various cities rise and fall, industrial buildings are abandoned and, at this point traditionally, inhabited by artists and craftspeople requiring large quantities of inexpensive space. Before too long, a coffee shop moves in, maybe a laundromat that doubles as a poet's bar and a live-music venue. Soon enough there's an art gallery and a few architects. After a while an abandoned hell-hole has been transformed, with the sweat of artists, into a vibrant new home for restaurants, offices, galleries and businesses of all kinds. As prices skyrocket, the artists are forced to move, redeveloping the next discarded neighborhood. Generally a certain amount of the long-time businesses and residents of the surrounding neighborhoods are also forced to move as gentrification ripples out across the urban landscape like a beautiful storm of community gardens and over-inflated property taxes. It is a tricky situation, a Darwinian and not entirely fair process through which neighborhoods adapt and vie for survival in the wild.
Similar dynamics have played out in Santa Fe before-Canyon Road ring a bell?-but, as local "urbanist" Roy Wroth pointed out at the charette, Santa Fe's situation is, as usual, somewhat unique in that we don't have an abandoned industrial area and we're looking at building live/work units from scratch. Thus the fears are even greater-if it isn't occurring organically, created by artists from the ground up, how do we know artists will use it? How do we know we're making a home for a community of craftspeople rather than high-dollar condos for citified second-homers? It can be done-Santa Fe even has the opportunity to be at the vanguard of a new concept in live/work development, emphasizing cohesive architectural character, affordability, green design and economic development. Second Street, following the addition of studios and live/work units, is blossoming into a prize bloom in the City's bouquet, without compromising the surrounding neighborhood, but the concept-involving artists and developers, i.e., shady characters-remains, you know, scary.
Operating from the fear of being duped and boondoggled by developers, among several other fears ranging from absolutely justified to marginally insane, an organization calling itself C.A.R.E (Citizens Against Railyard Exploitation) has now gone so far as to call for the disbanding of the Santa Fe Railyard Community Corporation for even considering the development of a particular high-density, urban style live/work project on our Railyard. This small group caused councilors to muse about ditching the entire community-generated master plan during the Public Works meeting. Instead of folding, the Council needs to get a little backbone.
Here's the thing: C.A.R.E. is too reactionary and absurd-it should be sitting down with the developer to talk about how to incorporate the project into the surrounding neighborhood. The SFRCC is too closed and secretive-it is managing our property and we have a right to know why and how it's coming to the decisions that it is. The developer is too defensive and frustrated. He believes that people opposed to his project just don't get it and never will-he needs to get past what he imagines to be neighborhood outreach and find a way to really bring the voice of the community into the development. And the Council ought to lead the way.
There are dangers to creating live/work space, especially from scratch, but done properly it will be an invaluable addition to the Railyard, lending vitality and an active and evolving form of arts participation to the property. Disbanding the non-profit that manages the Railyard property, and stopping the momentum that is currently underway is a serious act, one which would necessitate something more substantial than some cranky neighbors and a few activists holding a grudge. Developing anything at all, especially something of significant architectural and social presence on our Railyard property is a privilege, not an investment opportunity and all parties need to be clear on that point. It's imperative that any project be done as a welcome addition to the neighborhood, rather than an invading force. Equally imperative is that the neighborhood be open to new and different kinds of neighbors. Besieged from all sides with divisive input on this project, the Council needs to act with wisdom, to uphold the many-years-in-the-making master plan and to make this project work for all parties rather than cow-towing to noise and scuttling the whole plan.
But since that leadership is looking like a pipe dream, how about mom and dad get left out of it? How about the concerned citizens neighboring the Railyard, who keep telling me how neighborly they are-always gathering for impromptu evening chats and weekend BBQs-invite the developer and SFRCC board members over for a wee grill 'n' chill session; spend an afternoon with the "greedy developer" and "bitter neighbor" hats hung up outside the fence and just brainstorm about artists, infill, tradition, progress, hopes and dreams of all kinds and how to create something beautiful at the point where the soul of the city reaches out and touches each of our lives. You know, a compromise.
