Indy’s Monument Circle and the Legacy of East Liberty
Last week the news broke that Indianapolis is planning to close traffic on Monument Circle (see Indy Star “City to test banning vehicles from Monument Circle“) to test the idea of a downtown pedestrian mall. As the marketing director for Indianapolis says:
The concept is based on models in European cities, where pedestrian plazas drive economic development. “We think it will have the same kind of effects here,” Pittman said.
I first want to praise the City of Indianapolis for initiating this project. It is great to hear that they seriously believe that pedestrians can spur economic development. And it is also great to know they are willing to experiment to find ways to improve our city.
Monument Circle is the heart of Indianapolis
Unfortunately, I’m not so sure that Monument Circle is the right place to start. It is already a safe place for pedestrians, and it is one of the best shared spaces in the US. Without the conventional traffic signals and posted signs, drivers slow down and negotiate based on interaction with other users of the space. In this place more than any other in Indianapolis, vehicles are very respectful of pedestrians and bicyclists. We don’t need to recreate a European Plaza and remove vehicles from the Circle, we need to find ways to make the rest of Indianapolis just like the circle.
In fact, the whole idea of pedestrian-only spaces is a ineffective substitute for good urban design. Trying to simplify traffic flows and separate transport modes has yielded poor results historically. Integration of traffic, pedestrian, bicycling and other traffic in a way that creates a safe, efficient, and interesting streetscape should be every city’s goal. Removing cars from one small space downtown may seem like a great and lofty goal, but in reality it falls well short of what we really need.
The circular car-free zone proposed for Monument Circle reminds me of a cautionary tale from Pittsburgh of the 1960′s, the creation of a “pedestrian mall” in the neighborhood of East Liberty. The neighborhood of East Liberty at the turn of the century was a commercial success and boasted the finest shopping establishments outside of downtown. It resembled many of the neighborhoods of Pittsburgh with small streets, mid-rise mixed use buildings, and a vibrant streetlife.
The neighborhood's commercial district was once wealthy enough to support one of the landmark churches of the city
The residential streets surrounding East Liberty's commercial center are well maintained, affluent areas
Shortly after World War II and the rise of the auto-dependent lifestyle, the merchants began to fear that they would lose their customers to the suburbs. They petitioned to the city for help, and what happened has become a case study in unintended consequences.
The network of existing streets was repurposed into a confusing 1-way circle pattern
The 1-way Penn Circle cut off the commercial district from its residents
Public housing projects, parklets, and parking lots were installed throughout the neighborhood
The concept of Penn Circle was that automotive traffic would bring shoppers to the area, and they would park in one of the many spacious parking lots. Then they would proceed on foot to the local shops of the area. It didn’t work out. As it happened, the parking lots and one-way circle cut off the shops from local pedestrians, and drivers just drove around the area and never bothered to stop because they didn’t know what was there.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article, “The Story of Urban Renewal” from 2000, discusses the Urban Renewal period in Pittsburgh from an historical perspective. They even track down the old city officials who made the plans. The officials defend their actions, citing a combination of good intentions and ignorance. In response, the article’s author notes the following:
When the city ignored advice not to demolish homes and businesses in the Lower Hill District, it raised new questions about the government’s power to alter a neighborhood’s social, racial and economic fabric. When it replaced old buildings with utilitarian-style shopping complexes and office towers, it raised new questions about the relationship between architecture and people. When it ignored warnings that a pedestrian mall would doom the retail trade in East Liberty, it raised questions about the weakness of conventional wisdom.
While the temporary plan for Monument Circle seems quite modest in comparison to East Liberty, it should be noted that the City of Indianapolis has already made most of the same mistakes over time, and creating the pedestrian mall would be just the last step on the road to an East Liberty debacle in downtown Indy. Quoting again from the PPG article:
After the URA [Urban Redevelopment Authority] demolished 1,200 homes, reduced the size of the shopping district by 1 million square feet and closed the middle of East Liberty to automobiles, the neighborhood lost hundreds of small businesses, according to one report. In the four decades that followed, it lost more than 4,500 people. “They ruined East Liberty,” said Floyd Coles, 75, who has lived in the neighborhood most of his life.
Older storefronts are still boarded up in some areas of the district
The wide, fast streets and complete disregard for pedestrian access eliminated the active streetlife of the area
The lesson here is that automobiles and pedestrians must be integrated into our urban plans, because separation and segregation is not a formula for success. As much as we want to simplify our streetscapes and craft a perfect pedestrian space, the truth is that we need to accommodate cars and people alongside each other.
East Liberty has learned this lesson in a painful way, but now they are trying to improve their situation. The neighborhood efforts were even featured in a New York Times article “Slumbering Pittsburgh Neighborhood Reawakens.” Of course, they still have a long way to go before they regain their commercial district and streetlife. But small changes can yield great benefits.
New Construction shows that the commercial center is reviving after recent investments
Penn Circle is being ditched in favor of 2-way streets and a conventional grid street system. No longer will local residents be separated from their commercial district. This quote from this Popcity article “$7M Penn Circle conversion to right historic East Liberty wrong” sums up the new plan:
“This is fixing a giant flaw that occurred in the neighborhood redevelopment in the ’60s and ’70s,” says Wildfire. “The whole goal back then was to divert traffic around the business district, but as we found out, that was a horrible idea. It created this four to five-lane moat of high-speed traffic around our business district and took energy and vitality away from our core. Who wants to cross five lanes of chaos? I can’t think of a better way to dissuade residents from shopping in their own commercial district.
Let’s return to Indianapolis and the plans for Monument Circle. I fear that the city may have realized that pedestrian activity plays a huge role in downtown commercial development, but missed the historic lessons available on this subject. Pedestrian malls are rarely successful, especially when traffic is diverted away or around the area. The one-way streets of downtown Indy would be particularly difficult for pedestrians to negotiate when traffic increases because of Monument Circle street closures.
Automotive traffic can be a very welcome presence in cities when good urban design is involved. Automotive traffic brings in a lot of commercial activity, just as pedestrians do. I strongly support the city’s initiative to use Monument Circle as a testing ground for new ideas, so I don’t want anyone to think I am criticizing the need for experimentation. But I do think that the city already has a working model of a great pedestrian area and should be spending their time trying to recreate this model throughout the city. Merchants, citizens, and city officials would be better served if the space remains open to traffic and the nearby areas are instead made more pedestrian friendly.
I enjoyed this piece, very well written. I both agree and disagree with your sentiments. I too applaud the City’s experimentation with Monument Circle and I too am unsure if it is the right time to turn the Circle to a pedestrian plaza.
Having said that, I think this is the right policy and is something cities across the country are actively doing. New York has their Times Square and Herald Square and SanFrancisco has their Pavement to Parks initiatives – all of which have been largely successful. So separating pedestrians from cars, in instances where pedestrian activity is already intensely active, is a sound policy decision.
Past mistakes should be learned from but not always used as a reason to not implement ideas today. The 60′s and 70′s were a completely different time and people’s attitudes and lifestyles are dramatically changing. Thus, people are more open to pedestrian only zones moreso today than they were back then.
Plus, what we learned from the pedestrian malls of the past is that they shouldn’t be used to attract pedestrians and investment but should instead enhance areas that already have strong pedestrian activity. I am not sure if Monument Circle has the amount of pedestrians to currently support a ped. only plaza, but I do think the policy unto itself is a sound, smart initiative.
I think your article is well-intentioned, but it leaves me feeling frustrated in the same way I have felt frustrated by many criticisms of the proposal to close off the Circle to traffic. I think we can all agree that the history of urban renewal in the U.S. is a troubled one and that it lead to significantly more failures than successes. Also, so-called pedestrian street malls have not had a good track record. I can even agree that the proposal to close the Circle off to vehicular traffic should be carefully considered and that it may have some negative consequences. All that said, I wish I could read an argument against closing the Circle to vehicular traffic that did not veer into the absurd.
I am sorry, but there is truly no similarity between the proposal to test closing the Circle off to vehicular traffic and the destruction of the East Liberty Street commercial district in Pittsburgh. The Circle proposal is a plan to close off a small round-about which supports very few retail establishments and which does not serve as a major transportation corridor for downtown vehicular traffic. There are several major cross-town streets around the Circle which can adequately absorb any increased traffic flow from closing off the Circle. I worked in downtown Indianapolis for many years and frequently had to drive across downtown during my workday, while I could have taken a route that utilized the Circle, I never did because it was not the quickest way to get across town. Many people driving around the Circle are quite frankly drivers who are unfamiliar with downtown streets and don’t know there is generally a better route to take. In contrast, the East Liberty Street urban renewal project involved the closure of a thriving major commercial corridor coupled with a massive tear-down of the surrounding neighborhood, and the project is neither in the same category or scope as the Circle proposal.
Now, if someone were to argue that closing the Circle off to cars would inconvenience valet parking for the Columbia Club or disrupt deliveries for WellPoint’s corporate headquarters, I may disagree (or I may say I could give a rat’s ass about the snooty Columbia Club or the rapacious WellPoint corporation) but I could at least accept that these are legitimate arguments to consider when evaluating the proposal to close off the Circle to vehicular traffic. Furthermore, I would even generally tend to agree with the argument that the Circle already serves as a successful pedestrian area downtown and that much of the rest of downtown would be improved if it were remade to be as pedestrian-friendly as the Circle. Nonetheless, I still believe there are potential benefits which could be achieved by completely closing the Circle off to vehicular traffic (perhaps, there could be a limited exception for deliveries) and that the pedestrian experience on the Circle could be made even better. At the very least, I certainly don’t object to the city at least experimenting with the idea.
I agree with Graeme, and I’d like to see an actual list of the real benefits to be gained by the closing. Even if some of the arguments against veer into what you think are absurd, the fact is no one has made a good argument FOR closing the Circle other than “it’s an experiment”. Let’s see the list of benefits so we can talk about them!
Also, Chris, you left out the Circle Theater and Christ Church issues. The only viable handicapped and pedestrian entrance to the theater is the middle of the SE quadrant of the Circle. Given the demographic of theater visitors, this is no small thing. LIkewise, Christ Church’s front door is on the NE corner of the Circle and the same argument applies. (Wellpoint is a non-issue because they’re connected internally to their garage off Illinois; likewise Emmis; and Chase with their garage off Penn.)
@ Greg – I agree that people are more open to pedestrian only spaces these days. I just don’t think they are necessary, because we have good models of places where people and cars interact safely and effectively. Automobile traffic can bring a lot of business to these areas, so we shouldn’t be too quick to throw that out.
But I think the beautiful part of this proposal is that the city is going to test out whether or not this idea works. The free market will decide if this is a good concept or not. I could be completely wrong, maybe closing off the Circle will create a pedestrian haven that people love and support. In that case, I will be very happy with the outcome.
Though I do still fear that Indianapolis is setting its goals too low. I would much rather have 16 walkable and livable blocks of mixed automobile and pedestrian streets than 1 block of a pedestrian plaza.
@ Chris – I am sorry that you felt frustrated by my post. It is obvious that you have a lot of passion for this subject, and I think that is a great thing. If everyone in Indianapolis started looking at their streetscapes with such a critical eye then I imagine we would have a more interesting city.
But I do maintain that my comparison is valid. Once Monument Circle is closed, we will have a one-way street system surrounding the core part of downtown. This will force a circling traffic pattern and will prevent exploration of downtown by those unfamiliar with the peculiarities of the streets. The heavier traffic along these streets will discourage pedestrian access unless specific actions are taken to connect it with the greater downtown areas.
And, as I pointed out in my post, the tear-downs of the surrounding neighborhoods have already occurred – for example please visit Circle Center mall, the Market Square Arena, anywhere south of the train lines, or the many parking lots north of the Capitol building. These were at one time fully built-out downtown areas.
CDC guy:
I know both the Circle Theater and the Christ-Church Cathedral are also on the Circle, and while I don’t want to be completely dismissive of the issue of accommodating people with disabilities and/or the elderly, I will say that both buildings do have other handicapped accessible entrances. I think the Circle Theater has better access than Christ-Church Cathedral (as an anecdote, my elderly grandmother often attended performances at the Circle Theater and I can’t recall ever dropping her off by car at the Circle entrance). Furthermore, I think it would certainly be possible to have the Circle closed to general vehicular traffic while allowing limited drop-off access for persons with disabilities and elder people. Perhaps, the city could install the same sort of retractable traffic blocking device being planned for the Georgia Street plaza (or already used by the state government complex). Along with some signs and traffic officers, the issue could be handled fairly easily.
Graeme:
I did find your post interesting, even if I disagreed with some of your points. To respond to your additional remarks: In my opinion, neither Circle Center Mall nor the Market Square Arena redevelopment have anything to do with the proposed closure of Monument Circle to vehicular traffic. In the East Liberty Street urban renewal project, the closure of the main commercial corridor was part of the larger redevelopment plan which included tearing down large parts of the neighborhood. In contrast, the proposed closure of the Circle to cars has absolutely nothing to do with any of the earlier redevelopment efforts in downtown Indianapolis. Also, I would argue that Circle Mall has been a very successful project, and many people would say it helped to reinvigorate downtown Indianapolis. Whether the mall has had some negative effects on pedestrian activity can certainly be debated, but I would not at all consider Circle Centre Mall to be a failed redevelopment project like the East Liberty Street urban renewal effort in Pittsburgh.
As for the parking lots you mention, you can find similar lots in just about any downtown in any major city in the U.S. Moreover, the parking lot construction and related building demolitions in downtown Indianapolis happened gradually over several years and didn’t have anything to do with any sort of comprehensive plan to redevelop downtown. With the renewed development interest in downtown and the implementation of much stricter historic preservation and development regulations in recent years (and certainly since the years following the big “urban renewal” decades of the 1950′s-1970′s), it is unlikely downtown Indianapolis will see that many more large-scale tear-downs, and certainly not for the purpose of building surface parking lots. In any event, I am not sure how closing the Circle off to vehicular traffic would lead to more building demolitions, especially since the Circle and several blocks surrounding it are part of a historic preservation district and also subject to Regional Center design review?
I happened on your blog and was gratified to see that our thoughts on the Circle and pedestrian-friendly spaces are very similar. Most of us who wish to keep the Circle open to vehicular traffic are, like me, actually rather progressive when it comes to mass transit, real bicycle lanes, and a far more pedestrian-friendly environment. We just believe that the Circle should not be tampered with in the form as is proposed.
I am a very small-business owner with offices in the Circle Tower, the Art Deco building on the Circle. While it is good to point out the effect this plan will have on the Symphony, Columbia Club, and Christ Church, the fact is that the vast majority of people who use the Circle are those in the offices above the first floor. It is a center of business, not retail or entertainment and has been this way since before ANY of our parents were born. The plan involves not only closing off the Circle to traffic, but also the removal of parking on each of the “spokes.” The following is what “will” happen and is not something imagined:
1. As of 1 August, disabled and elderly clients of mine who drive Downtown themselves will no longer be able to visit my office without great hardship to them and me. Instead of parking on the Circle or Market Street they will need to park in a parking garage down the street and call me to go to the garage to push their wheelchairs to my office as they cannot walk that far. Or they may choose not to come at all. For colleagues, quickly dropping off documents at my office will now become a chore for them involving more than the typical five minutes in parking and elevator ride.
2. Although the “test” is planned for August when the Symphony is conveniently playing at Conner Prairie, I cannot imagine how the many elderly and disabled people who attend the performances will enjoy being dropped off in the alley behind the theater. At the very least, it will seem “inconvenient” not to utilize the valet services and the new Carmel theater will seem more appealing.
3. While some here may view the Columbia Club with disdain (I belong but am hardly a Republican), the Club provides something of a community gathering place for weddings, proms, graduation dances, and conferences. It relies on its valet service to make it more appealing to those who would otherwise not even go Downtown. We already know that business goes way down when the Circle is currently closed for one-off special events. It is not conjecture to say that the Club will not survive if the Circle is permanently closed.
The last point brings up an oft-overlooked point: There is a very real attitude amongst quite a few people who live beyond the county line that they will only patronize something Downtown if they can park in sight of it, elderly or not. Whether or not that is a valid point (I would obviously say not) it is the view of many, many people and we need to deal with it. As it currently stands, allowing cars brings people to the Circle who would otherwise not be here.
The goal of the “test” is to create a festival atmosphere similar to those sometimes found in Europe — something that I find admirable from the Ballard administration. I myself enjoyed St. Mark’s Square in Venice for a long, leisurely evening and would enjoy something like that here. But that square, like most in Europe, was bounded by the large church, palace, and canal. Immediately behind those structures were many, many homes and tourist hotels. In essence, there were people immediately available all day and night who would enjoy and add to the festival atmosphere. Our Circle is chiefly composed of offices and a few retail shops. The closest residential structure is two blocks away (110 E Washington), with most other condos/homes being several more blocks away. Frankly, the closest we have to that successful mix is Mass Avenue, albeit without the hotels.
I apologize for taking up so much space. I should say that many of us like me are open to other possibilities on the Circle. We just wished the Ballard administration had asked us about it before surprising everyone with this announcement.
If anyone is so moved, you can join our Keep Monument Circle Open group on Facebook.
[...] source of this project coming in under budget. Somebody was asleep at the switch bigtime on this. Monument Circle and the Legacy of East Liberty (A Place of [...]
@ Chris:
“The Circle proposal is a plan to close off a small round-about which supports very few retail establishments and which does not serve as a major transportation corridor for downtown vehicular traffic… Many people driving around the Circle are quite frankly drivers who are unfamiliar with downtown streets and don’t know there is generally a better route to take.”
i think these points alone strengthen the arguments against full 24/7 pedestrianization. with a severe lack of retailers and pedestrian destinations, where are people going to walk to? what will draw them in to the circle in the first place? and as you mention in your second point, many out-of-towners come across the circle by accident in their cars. people don’t go there because it’s the “better route”. this will eliminate the possibility for people to discover this jewel by accident. if they don’t know it’s there, they won’t go. as it stands, plenty of people find the circle by taking a wrong turn, being able to drive thru and see it from the car might compel some of them to park and explore it more.
I fully agree with the original post that at present the design of the space allows for easy and comfortable use by all modes of travel with minimal conflict. The Circle is rife with traffic calming devices that many planners and engineers consider to be on the cutting edge of urban design but have been part of The Circle’s makeup for decades and may have been purely accidental. it is a space where drivers naturally slow down and pay attention:
1) the curved nature of the road means they cannot see as far ahead of them as they are accustomed to on straight roads
2) the textured driving surface makes high speeds loud and uncomfortable
3) the complete lack of any directional or signalized vehicular controls forces drivers to pay closer attention to what’s happening all around them
4) the numerous street trees and concrete bollards create visual barriers that make the street feel narrower than it is
all these elements add up to provide drivers with an environment where the only comfortable speed is a slow one, which makes this a safe place for pedestrians.
as a pedestrian on The Circle i have never been terribly aware of the vehicular traffic apart from the occasional noisy motorcycle, the sidewalks along the outer rim are very wide, especially considering some of the tiny strips of pavement that pass for sidewalks in Indy. the curbs are low, and in the center nonexistent. walking around the center ring the only thing separating pedestrians from traffic are those concrete bollards which are technically wide enough for a car to drive thru (i’ve seen the police do it occasionally) but i’ve never felt unsafe. in fact that’s probably one of my favorite areas to stroll around the city. passing from the outer ring to the inner ring can be confusing for new comers with the lack of any designated crosswalks. but again, i feel this is a strength, it forces pedestrians to be aware of whats going on around them and not assume those white stripes on the ground are going to protect them.
finally, what benefits will be realized by making the circle a full time pedestrian plaza? besides “it’ll be a pedestrian plaza!” i haven’t heard any solidly enumerated benefits. there seems to have been no forethought put into this idea other than “New York is doing it so we should too.” where’s the SWOT analysis? what is the cost-benefit ratio? when were the public consultation meetings? on the one hand i’m impressed that the Ballard administration has had the gumption to just go for it rather than getting bogged down in endless process, but at some point, the planning process is important. if at the very least to first ask–and hopefully answer–what do we want and how do we get it?