Redwood City looks to lose ‘Deadwood City’ nickname
Once one of the largest cities in Silicon Valley between San Francisco and San Jose, most people today have never heard of Redwood City, much less visited there for any particular reason. If current plans stay on track, that’ll soon change.
Public and private leaders recognized that their city was being left in the dust as the neighboring towns of Mountain View and Palo Alto initiated dramatic investment in their downtowns. Shrewdly, they brought in the same urban design group that planned Mountain View’s downtown renaissance. Along with a more knowledge-economy-evolved constituency (this couldn’t have happened ten years ago), the government, business and community populations collaborated long hours to craft a truly visionary downtown blueprint, the Redwood City Downtown Revitalization Strategy & Specific Plan.
The plan’s two key components are:
– A form-based code (like the SmartCode) – the revitalization strategy. That is, the code defines the buildings’ forms, not the uses. This is the basis that explains why historic Rome to downtown Alexandria, VA have flourished for centuries.
– A re-design of the Downtown Transit Center with a prominent public space linked to the main street – the specific plan (pictured). Both aforementioned cities are known for their grand public squares/piazzas.
new higher density residential and office development.
About The Author
Redwood City as a destination… that”s a riot! Ed Everett and the City Council have Palo Alto envy. What these numbskulls fail to realize is that Palo Alto has a little school called Stanford University, which draws people from all over the world.
Redwood City will never be a destination City, and all the hope in the world will never change this fact. We are not Palo Alto, we are not San Francisco, we are not Berkeley. This is precisely why I moved my family here; I wanted to live in a suburb of these cities, while not having the crime and other issues that come with a destination city.
These morons can wish upon a star all they want, redwood city will never be anything but a community outside of San Francisco, or a bedroom community of illegal immigrants, gardeners, housekeepers etc. who serve the wealthy of Atherton, Woodside, Portola Valley et al…
There is no amount of spending our tax dollars, which will change this fact.
I am sick and tired of these jokers spending hundreds of millions of our hard earned tax dollars in quell their extreme envy. If you like Palo Alto or Mountain View so much, then move your asses out of our town.
The language used by “Enemy of The State” exemplifies what moved into Redwood City post WWII. No longer a resident of that town, I recall how the flight from S.F. and
East Bay cities changed the town, not always for the better. R.E. taxes soon eclipsed my family’s monthly mortgage payments. A charming drive-in restaurant at El Camino and Arlington Rd. became overrun with rowdy
elements that altered its
former attractiveness.
Yes, it was and probably remains a bedroom community. But it may no
longer house the people that contributed to its
once-tranquill environment.
A move to Texas found what R.C. had lost.
You do know that neither Rome nor Alexandria has flourished throughout its history, right? Rome was little more than a poor village dotted with ruins for a millennium after the Empire fell, and Old Town Alexandria was a moribund backwater for many decades after its port silted in and the Civil War destroyed much of its industry. (As an Alexandria resident I’m wondering where are the “grand public squares/piazzas” that this city is supposed to be known for? But that’s another topic.)
My point? Patterning new or redeveloped urban spaces after some currently fashionable historical prototype is risky business at best. Places change. Circumstances change. Thanks to global warming and the impending end of the cheap energy boom, we have no idea what the urban environment will be like in 50 or 100 years. Instead of high-concept schemes to turn every Podunk into a new Manhattan we need to emphasize small-scale, incremental improvements that allow places to build on their natural strengths and existing urban fabric.
Thanks Jim,
You’re right – no city flourishes continuously. However, some are designed to evolve or recover much better than others, which is exactly what you’re saying in the second paragraph. What I’m trying to say about Rome and Alexandria is that their urban fabric is timeless (somewhat the opposite of ‘currently fashionable’), and that’s a major reason why they’re vibrant today. During inevitable economic or cultural shifts where more or less people are living, working, or being entertained downtown, the buildings can accommodate the changes in use effortlessly. This is unlike say, a strip mall which is never going to be residential unless it’s torn down, with its surrounding auto-oriented infrastructure definitely more ‘fashionable’ before traffic congestion.
Alexandria’s central square is clearly the city’s perceived center and a significant part of its identity – just check out its postcard stands. The plural was meant for both Rome and Alexandria, though you need to give your town and its popular plaza more credit. It’s not a piazza, but neither is there a true one (enclosed on all four sides with no roads in between) anywhere in the U.S…. yet, and not because they’re currently fashionable, but because people sincerely love being in them.
I totally agree with organic, incremental growth, which is why the website emphasizes people-driven investment vs mass production, and for this site’s regular audience anyway, local culture can be enhanced by understanding what appeals to locals elsewhere as well – in their country or the world.