A Renewed Federal Mandate [Forum]

Todd W. Bressi A Renewed Federal Mandate The federal government’s impact on the landscape has been vast and pervasive. From the earliest days of the republic, federal investment has spurred the growth of communities and regions, and it has transmitted ideas about what the face of architecture, the form of communities and the character of places ought to be. The location of facilities like customs houses, court- houses, military bases and highways can make or break a town–conferring political status and prosper- ity on the lucky recipients. But such investments can also be uneasy impositions–their design unresponsive to local traditions or conditions, their long-term prospects dependent on the patronage of far-away politicians and bureaucrats. The General Services Administration, which manages the government’s enormous real estate operation, is often the focal point for this tension. GSA ’s Public Buildings Service controls more than 300 million square feet of space in more than 1,600 cities; each year it spends more than $5 billion for private real estate, maintenance and security services and makes some 3,000 lease and location decisions. The impact of these activities may be local and, at times, undramatic, but they still can have an important effect on communities. The challenge for GSA has been to consider not only the concerns of the agencies it serves but also these local impacts. As long ago as 1949, Congress required GSA to coordinate federal projects with local plans, and a host of mandates concerning historic preservation, environmental protection and shared use have followed. Last year GSA established a “Center for Urban Devel- opment and Livability,” whose focus is helping GSA align its activities more closely with the interests of local communities. Last fall, the center gathered regional GSA administrators, project managers and urban experts in a work- shop that considered the dynamics, potential and process of this renewed federal commitment. From Lightning Rod to Catalyst The cause of “livable communities” has become a visible political issue, even meriting men- tion in President Clinton’s State of the Union address. “A wave of civic revitalization is rolling across the country,” Keith Laughlin, from the White House Task Force on Livable Communities, told the workshop. “The federal government can play a key role in this process, and is committed to being a dependable partner to communities wrestling with this issue.” Of course, the arena in which GSA operates is complex. There are client agencies and building management issues to consider, as well as federal policies concern- ing retail leasing, selling property, environmental review and historic preservation. At the workshop, GSA Opposite page: Market and public art on the plaza at the federal building in Chicago— two approaches to making liv- able places Above: The historic Stegmaier Brewery in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., was saved from demolition when GSA converted it into a federal office building. Photos: Center for Urban Devel- opment and Livability staff recounted what one person called “the hun- dred balls we have to juggle”: • Agency concerns (such as parking and security), may conflict with local concerns (such as urban design, traffic and stimulating development downtown). Agencies often seek extra funding for interior amenities, such as furnishings, rather than public amenities, such as plazas, landscaping or public art. • Government procedures do not always consider the value of addressing broader community concerns. • Government spending occurs in a political arena, with many layers of oversight, and is unpredictable. FORUM: GSA CENTER FOR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND LIVABILITY