Reality Check review and images

[thelakelander]

JaxPoliticsOnline.com has a good review and a few images from today's Reality Check event at World Golf Villages



link: http://jaxpolitics.wordpress.com/2009/05/21/a-reality-check-comes-to-the-first-coast/

[reednavy]

OMFG, they really did play with Legos. So all our "smart" politicians and planners went back to 1st grade for a little bit, if that's what it takes.

[Charles Hunter]

I heard that the Lego Maps started out as clean slates, without any of the current population or jobs on them.  Is that true?  How did tables take into consideration where people currently live and work?  Or are we all just subject to be moved into a pile of Legos someplace else?

[riverside planner]

The legos were intended to represent new population and job growth projections only. 

And reednavy, sometimes you have to go back to basics.  The legos do provide a useful, if simplistic, 3D view of population density.

[tufsu1]

agreed...and Legos are fun too!

[JaxNole]

I actually like the Lego process.  As this is still an early phase of the process, it would be prudent to engage many minds, even those whose careers are not directly tied to planning or development.  

It can be as useful as brainstorming and process mapping and provides a visual many can grasp.

Now, if Legoland were finalized and used to execute, then I would be embarrassed and move to North Platte, NE.

[Charles Hunter]

OK, the red/yellow Legos were for "new growth" - how did the participants know how much existing growth is already on the ground?  If you add 10 population Legos to a spot on the map, there could already be 5 Legos worth of people living there.  That spot might handle 10 OK, but 15 would overwhelm the infrastructure, or the folks already there.  Maybe they could have used white and blue for existing jobs/people.

[tufsu1]

Obviously the exercise needs to be somewhat simplistic if you want non-planners to do this in 3 hours....Also, keep in mind that its a 60,000 foot level look....so it doesn't much matter exactly how much development is on the ground today...specially when we need to accomodate 100% more people...as such, the entire game is geared to the question of "where shall we grow"

[Charles Hunter]

Good point, the game wasn't designed for the average poster at MetroJacksonville!!   
I learn so much here!

[Captain Zissou]

I think this event was a great idea.  I did a similar activity in an Urban and Regional Planning class I took, and the process is very interesting and educational.
From reading the article, it seemed that the author realized that for smart growth, the city will need to implement many of the things we advocate on this site.  While legos are a bit elementary, I think the impact was very positive.

[riverkeepered]

Many folks were not aware of the controversy surrounding the "rules" of this exercise.  Unfortunately, the developers did not want the Florida Forever lands to be identified on the maps, since they have not been purchased yet.  The Florida Forever lands are some of our most ecologically sensitive and important lands that are left in Florida that have been prioritized for potential purchase by the state after a rigorous evaluation process.

There was eventually a compromise that allowed Florida Forever maps to be posted on the wall but not included on the maps used in the exercise with the legos.  For this exercise to be legitimate, the participants need to be provided with all relevant information, so that they could make informed decisions and hopefully avoid placing legos on environmentally sensitive lands ,unnecessarily opening some areas up to development and sprawl, and justifying infrastructure that may not be needed. 

Also, the Reality Check growth projections are completely misleading.  The numbers they used are based on the projections before the economic meltdown.  The latest growth numbers that were recently released by UF's Bureau of Economic and Business Research have been dialed down significantly.   In fact, we have recently experienced something that was unheard of not too long ago in FL - we actually have had negative growth.

The projections are very important because they dictate how much land you have an opportunity to identify for conservation or open space and how much infrastructure is actually needed.  Everyone put down far more homes on the map than were necessary, essentially removing some areas from consideration for conservation and justifying the need for development of those areas in the future.   

This is the same issue with the water withdrawal proposals.  The SJRWMD has overestimated future population growth and water needs and is thus moving forward with very expensive and potentially harmful projects that may not even be necessary.

I guess we are supposed to just act as if this severe economic downturn is not happening and continue to on with business as usual.   

[tufsu1]

Also, the Reality Check growth projections are completely misleading.  The numbers they used are based on the projections before the economic meltdown.  The latest growth numbers that were recently released by UF's Bureau of Economic and Business Research have been dialed down significantly.   In fact, we have recently experienced something that was unheard of not too long ago in FL - we actually have had negative growth.

The projections are very important because they dictate how much land you have an opportunity to identify for conservation or open space and how much infrastructure is actually needed.  Everyone put down far more homes on the map than were necessary, essentially removing some areas from consideration for conservation and justifying the need for development of those areas in the future.  

I guess we are supposed to just act as if this severe economic downturn is not happening and continue to on with business as usual.  

Not sure I agree...for example, the BEBR projections between 2000 and 2006 were being adjusted upward every year...and still being outpaced by growth in places like St. Johns and Flagler counties...plus, the 1.6 million more people is based on what are known as the "medium" projections....BEBR high is far greater.

That said, maybe you're right....maybe we wont see 1.6 million more people by 2060....but does anyone doubt that it will happen someday?

I don't think the growth assumptions had to have much effect on the land consumed.....if a given table wanted to protect land and add more density, they just stacked the lego blocks instead of distributing them across the map....that's how we ended up with the urban compact growth form versus the dispersed growth form.

The main purpose of the exercise was to look at potential new urban forms for our region in the future...and clearly that happened!

[Charles Hunter]

I still think it would have been better to start with the existing density, perhaps in different color blocks.  Then, if you wanted to de-densify - the Beaches* for example - you would take blocks away.  Or change an area from Employment to Residential (or vice versa).


* due to storm surge / rising ocean threats or whatever

[riverkeepered]

Since the latest BEBR numbers, medium and high, show a significant downward revision in growth projections, then why in the world would Reality Check not want to include the most current and realistic estimates?  Why would they choose to use numbers from a few years ago that were based on a continuation of the same rapid rate of growth that we were experiencing at that time?  This was supposed to a "reality check", not a "fantasy check".  

Maybe we will eventually see 1.6 million more people in the region, but it most likely won't happen within the timeframe identified by this exercise.   And, yes, I do question whether it will ever happen.  I'll save my commentary on our woeful state economy, education system, and vulnerability to climate change for another post.

If we truly want to grow more sustainably, then we must be able to make informed decisions and an honest assessment of our needs.  Inflating the growth projections only validates the need for more roads, alternative water supply sources, homes, septic tanks, etc. and subsequently more building permits and land use changes than are most likely necessary.  

I am sure that some good may come out of this exercise.  However, when the ground rules were set and the participants were not provided with all of the facts and relevant information from the beginning, the effectiveness and validity of this exercise was somewhat compromised.  

[tufsu1]

Putting blinders on works both ways....it's not good to overestimate, but underestimating growth may be worse!