|
Preservation Case Study: Venice, Florida (2006) Today few planners have the chance to design an entire town or city from scratch, but in the early twentieth century, town and city planner John Nolen (1869–1937) had many such opportunities. Based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Nolen’s firm worked on nearly 400 projects all over the country between 1905 and 1937, and designed new towns that include Venice, on Florida’s rural Gulf Coast; Mariemont, Ohio; and Kingsport, Tennessee. In an era when industrial pollution and overcrowded slums blighted America’s urban areas, Nolen wanted cities to provide, at a minimum, “children well fed, with fit bodies and active minds; sunlight not obscured by a dense canopy of smoke; reasonable quiet; and, above all, safety from danger and disease,” as he wrote in New Towns for Old (1927), reprinted, with a new introduction, in 2005 by University of Massachusetts Press in association with LALH. Nolen’s plan for Venice, Florida, designed in the 1920s for the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, embodied many of his ideals. It featured a compact urban center surrounded by open space, streets that provided pleasing views as well as efficient circulation, human-scaled streetscapes, abundant public parks, diverse types of housing to accommodate people of different income levels, and a mix of shops and housing within residential neighborhoods. Nolen-era buildings by New York City architects Walker and Gillette in the Northern Italian Renaissance style are still a Venice hallmark, but the community’s historical character has been strained by growth. Its permanent population has risen from 863 in 1950 to 20,602 today, with a seasonal bulge of 8,500 more, and the town has sprawled beyond its historical boundaries. Subdivisions and malls stretch north, south, and east of the city. In the 1960s, the Army Corps of Engineers dug the Intracoastal Waterway along the city’s southeastern edge, carving Venice into an island, where most of the original city lies. Also in the 1960s, high-rise condominium development started along the beachfront, continuing until the late 1980s, says Betty Intagliata, president of the Venice Historical Society. A moratorium on high-rise development was in place until about three years ago, when the planning commission approved three. Their construction precipitated to a public outcry. Since then, development issues have heated up, with advocates for historic preservation, property rights, affordable housing, and sustainable development all invoking Nolen’s name. In 2005, a developer’s proposal to tear down rental housing in Nolen’s apartment district and build high-priced condominiums in its place sparked opposition from neighborhood groups and the historical society. Although none of the buildings to be razed are of architectural or historical value, opponents say that Nolen’s intended economic diversity, a crucial part of his vision for Venice, will be erased by such projects. These condos will start at $720,000, while existing apartments in the neighborhood rent for about $600 a month. In the early months of 2006, Nolen’s name peppered articles and op-ed pieces in local newspapers. (One writer asked, “What would John Nolen do?”) Venice City Manager Martin Black, who is trained as a planner, says he supports Nolen’s principles, but he observes that today’s planners contend with constraints Nolen never faced, from environmental and zoning regulations that stymie growth to state tax and property-rights laws that favor developers. “If we were to tell the condo developer that he has to rent, not sell, the units in the rental district, we would have to compensate him for diminution of value under the Bert Harris Act,” says Black, referring to the state’s property-rights law. Also, as Black noted in a recent newspaper editorial, the city’s plan for adjacent areas competes with the county’s vision of high-density commercial, industrial, and residential development. Neither level of government has sole jurisdiction, so each must battle to prevail. Venice planners hope to create an entirely new community to balance needs for affordable housing and growth. The plan for The Bridges, unveiled to the public in February, would occupy about 150 acres in North Venice. Backed by a local nonprofit organization, it would offer 800 to 1,000 housing units, combining market- and below-market-rate housing, including rental units. “It reflects many of Nolen’s principles and is targeted for a mix of work-force housing, new businesses, and community park areas,” says Black. “We’re working with private and nonprofit entities to provide options that reflect much of what remains from Nolen’s plan in our historic area.” Nolen has also been embraced by New Urbanism, a movement that advocates human-scaled communities with ample open space and clustered density in mixed-use town and city centers. Because of that connection, Venice Area Historical Society president Intagliata urged the city council to adopt New Urbanist principles. She distributed New Urbanist literature and copies of the new edition of New Towns for Old to council members. To educate the general public, she organized lectures by Nolen scholars Bruce Stephenson of Rollins College and Charles D. Warren, who wrote the introduction to the new edition of New Towns for Old and was a Town Architect at Seaside, Florida—a model of New Urbanist planning. As both a Nolen scholar and a New Urbanist, Warren advises caution about replicating Nolen’s notions. “Nolen proposed a separate town near Venice for black residents, called Little Harlem. It is just one example of where following Nolen’s plan can be perilous,” says Warren. He adds that New Urbanists face different planning problems from those Nolen confronted: “Nolen set out to de-densify cities, and one of the fundamental arguments of New Urbanism is that density supports convenient, pedestrian-oriented town centers.” While those who want to preserve what they love most about Venice disagree on some points, they realize that change is inevitable. Nolen anticipated that, too, as Black, quoting the earlier planner, noted in his editorial: “A city plan does not attempt to bind the city too far in the future, but is subject to amendment from time to time according to new conditions.” (See related article.) Photographs: |
