David Barber will be taking over as Public Works Director when Steve Van Winkle retires October 1. According to WMBD Radio:
Barber has over 20 years experience as a Public Works Director in four communities in Illinois and Ohio including Downers Grove, Naperville and Evanston, Illinois and Bowling Green, Ohio. Barber’s first day in Peoria will be September 6th working closely with current Public Works Director Steve Van Winkle before he retires October first. Barber, who is 57, will be paid $116,000 a year.
As far as I can put together from searching the Internet, Barber worked in Naperville from 1996 to 2001. He was the Public Works Director there from 1996 to September 1999, at which time the city spun off a new Department of Traffic and Engineering to focus specifically on traffic issues (Chicago Tribune, 9/23/1999). Barber became the director of that new department and Naperville hired a new Public Works Director. On Jan. 31, 2001, Barber left the city of Naperville to take a job at Harza Engineering of Chicago (Chicago Tribune, 1/24/2001).
In January 2004, Barber went to work for Downers Grove as Public Works Director, and he worked there until June 5, 2007. According to DGreport.com, a local Downers Grove blog, Barber was asked to resign by the Village Manager:
Barber and Village Manager Cara Pavlicek reached the decision together, according to a Village Hall staffer. Barber, who has also been working as a continuing education instructor at the University of Wisconsin has decided to focus his interests in academia. He came to Downers Grove in January 2004 after more than 30 years experience in civil engineering and public works.
Some of the complaints during his short tenure included “residents of Oakwood Avenue challeng[ing] the department’s computations on the cost of repairing their brick street,” “complaints about the sidewalk matrix, the tool by which new sidewalks are prioritized for construction,” and “storm water drainage problems,” according to the site.
There’s no indication that Barber has any experience with the principles of New Urbanism. If that’s so, it’s a real disappointment. It will indicate that familiarity with and advocacy for those principles was not a high priority for the selection committee collectively, which included council members Van Auken, Jacob, and Turner. I’ve written to Van Auken and City Manager Oliver asking what experience Barber has with the principles of New Urbanism; I’ll update this post when I receive any information.
Given Barber’s age and recent job history, I will be surprised if he stays in Peoria more than five years, if that long.
“There’s no indication that Barber has any experience with the principles of New Urbanism. If that’s so, it’s a real disappointment. It will indicate that familiarity with and advocacy for those principles was not a high priority for the selection committee collectively…” Or maybe it was a high priority for the committee but no one with the experience you deem necessary applied. Or maybe there were some candidates with new urbanism experience, but they failed in other respects. Sure, you say you’ve asked Van Auken and Oliver for his background, but it sounds like you have your mind made up to be disappointed in the committee.
You may have been asking for a tall order in demanding that the new PW director have this specific experience. I think it would have been great, but there is a lot that goes into the job that has little to do with new urbanism. Consider also that you need someone who actually wants to come to Peoria at this salary and under these conditions (hostile Council). I’d settle for someone who is well-qualified and is open-minded, something the current director never really was.
new urbanism, while it sounds great on paper, isn’t something people in Peoria want. They want Wal-Mart with big parking lots. They shouldn’t but they do.
you can still have Wal Mart with a larger parking lot with new urbanism. I have never seen the lot completely full, so one doesn’t need all those spaces. Design it differently. Make it pedestrian friendly with the surrounding businesses. Utilize more green technology with water permeable surfaces, use bioswales, add trees for shade. Think out side of the big box (store).
Sud: What can I say? I have high expectations.
Anon: I disagree. They’ve been conditioned to accept Wal-Mart with big parking lots. That’s not what they want.
I don’t want Walmart. I’d prefer if we had a better balance between big box and Mom and Pop, though.
While his knowledge of New Urbanism may be important to some, I think its more important to be able to get down my street when it snows, drive on roads that don’t have craters in them, and trust that work crews are actually working.
And New Urbanism addresses those things, too. By making a community more walkable, it decreases traffic, which means less wear and tear on the roads in the first place. By having streets on a grid system, servicing those streets with snow plows is faster, more efficient, and less costly. As for whether the crews are working, well, the city bought a very expensive GPS system for that, so that problem is solved…. 😉
La-La Land. People will kill you if you touch their car, no one walks. Snow storms hit this city on the average of maybe twice a year. We have a great GPS system, who knows how to read it? New Urbanism may be practiced elsewhere but it will never happen in Peoria.
Admit it, Anti-Pundit, you don’t want it to work because then there would be fewer things to complain about! 😉
Actually, New Urbanism is happening, AP. Some of the folks who post here are a part of it.
I don’t doubt you have high expectations, CJ, I just think they are likely also narrow. How many people with serious PW experience have significant experience with new urbanism? (Should they have tried to lure away the director of Boulder’s PW, or maybe Seaside?) What other qualifications should they have, in your opinion? Hell, someone could have “experience with the principles of new urbanism” and have been terrible at it. (Steve Van Winkle likely could put “experience with the principles of new urbanism” on his resume.)
New Urbanism is great, and I’m a total advocate for it. I think it can work in Peoria. But it is not a panacea. You say it helps with snow removal – sure, if you are designing your city from the ground up. But no PW director, not even hiring Andres Duany himself, is going to get the current cul-de-sacs extended. PW handles lots of issues – storm water, fixing sidewalks, maintaining the buildings, fleet management, etc. I want a PW director who is well-rounded, well experienced, intelligent, progressive and open minded. I think you’d settle for a new urbanist to pal around with.
Sud: Why not try to lure the PW director from Boulder or Seaside? Or his assistant? Why is that immediately laughed off? Why wouldn’t we want to look for someone who has had successful experience in implementing the principles of New Urbanism? Why not try to get someone from a community we aspire to be like? Or do we aspire to be like Downers Grove?
I don’t believe in your false dichotomy that the only choice is between “stupid new urbanist pal” and “intelligent, progressive, experienced, open-minded traditional public works man.” I think you can have an intelligent, well-rounded, experienced PW director that also has New Urbanism experience. It’s my understanding that one of the eliminated finalists was a member of the Congress for New Urbanism, so there’s at least one candidate that interviewed here that met the criteria.
You’re right that there’s little we can do about inefficiences in the existing subdivisions/cul-de-sacs. But the city is still growing. We’re in the middle of writing a new comprehensive plan. Don’t you think this is a pivotal time to have a PW director that would advocate for New Urbanist principles when we’re doing future planning? Someone who would recommend traditional neighborhood streets so we don’t add more and more stress and inefficiency to our street system? Or do we want more of the same? More of a Downers Grove solution?
What Sud said….NU will not work in Peoria and that is not my fault. (I would love it to.) Look how seriously the Council takes it? They don’t as they almost dumped your little committee.
Well, Anti-Pundit, Peoria has adopted a Land Development Code, they have four form districts, they still have a commission that is advocating for the Heart of Peoria Plan. I guess you can look at everything they haven’t done and be a defeatist, or you can look at what they have done and try to build on it.
For more discussion on Dave Barber, you might want to check out my Downers Grove blog, http://dgreport.com/blog2/2007/09/05/dave-moves-south/#comments.
PS to CJSummers: I would have thought someone from Peoria would be a little kinder in their judgments of other towns 🙂
Say what you will and I wish you all the luck but it isn’t going happen. When you say Peoria are you in reference to the Council? If so, I rest my case. Be advised, me complaining about what this city does or doesn’t do wasn’t invented by me. It has taken years of inaction and gross incompetence by some of our great past city leaders to lead myself and oh yes, others to this point. Then people like you come along, slip on your rose colored glasses, get on a commission, and decide that everything should be your way or the highway. This would be great, this New Urbanism if Peoria was the size of Morton and starting to grow but this city has engrained patterns which will be hard to change if not impossible. Instead what we get is arguing over new grocery stores, TIF districts everywhere, cuts in city services, and ornamental lighting in areas that don’t need it nor want it as other sections of the city continue to be ignored as if they don’t exist all in the name of some council person wanting notches on their belt so when election time comes around, their mailer will look good. You want new urbanism? Then get the police a contract, fully staff and hire more, fully staff the fire department, improve and work with the school district instead of complaining about every single thing they do (CJ complain?). These things will reduce crime, improve neighborhoods (without ornamental lighting) and then maybe people will want to stay and live here. With that will come business and growth. It doesn’t work the other way around. Why this town can’t even decide on a trail or a railroad while neighboring communities are growing in leaps and bounds we are deciding if sidewalks are wide enough and the flower baskets on Main are being watered. Geez, sorry about the length, should have made this my blog and remember CJ, I hear the same from other people on this but this post is only my opinion but I guess I don’t have the right to one if it disagrees with the NU agenda.
Hi Elaine: Thanks for dropping by! I enjoyed reading your blog and stopped by today to leave my mea culpa. 🙂
Anti-Pundit: Yes, those other things need to happen too (police & fire fully staffed, school district improvement, etc.). But there is a public policy aspect that needs to be addressed, and that’s what the commission is trying to tackle. Things like zoning, streets, infrastructure maintenance — they all have an affect on private investment as well. Oh, and you have a right to your opinion, even if it is wrong. 😉
Let’s remember that extending the cul-de-sacs via adjoining development is Planning and Growth Management requirement. Which leads to the question …. why was a gate given consideration for the The Coves? Answer: To be determined at an upcoming Traffic Commission meeting.
The more things change, the more they remain the same is the mantra of Peoria. Very sad because Peoria has so much to offer and the people are great!
So, hopefully, we haven’t missed the NU boat for a few more years. However, it certainly appears that innovation, like getting the LST-325 a few years is not on the agenda for Peoria.
‘nough said. Fly your flag and fight your fight because you are right CJ, we are all in the same boat. Maybe someday the movers and shakers will stop giving lip service and NU will be implemented in new developements.
@CJ: OMG! You mean they rejected a card-carrying member of CNU? How much is membership running nowadays? Beth Akeson is no doubt a member; is she qualified to be the PW Director. Ever think the guy they rejected was deficient in lots of other ways (maybe he eats puppies, or something)?
And please, don’t put words in my mouth. Show me where I set up a “false dichotomy” of stupid new urbanist vs. intelligent traditional guy. You know I wasn’t saying that. Look, you’ll actually find no bigger proponent of New Urbanism than me. But it isn’t the ONLY QUALIFICATION. You’ve drawn the line fairly narrowly. PW Director is a big job that takes lots of skill sets. Familiarity and appreciation for new urbanism would be great in a candidate.
I don’t know how many people you’ve hired before, but I’ve hired plenty. You advertise for a position, and you have your ideal candidate in mind. Then you see what comes in. Rarely, if ever, does Jesus Christ himself apply. So you decide if who you have applying would work out and you go from there. I hope Mr. Barber is well-rounded and open-minded. I hope he embraces NU and the good work you, Beth and others are trying to accomplish. But unlike you, I am not willing to dismiss him (and the entire process) just because he doesn’t fly your particular flag.
Sud — Who’s putting words in whose mouth? I don’t think NU advocacy is the “only qualification.” I never said it was. Nor do I think we’re going to find the perfect candidate.
Let me ask you this: If we brought in a candidate that had little or no snow plowing experience — say a guy from a place like Memphis where there’s not a lot of snow — would that candidate be disqualified? The answer is yes. Why? Because that’s considered an essential qualification. Now, is it the *only* qualification? If Beth Akeson or I or you knew how to drive a snow plow, would that make us a good candidate? No, of course not. There are other qualifications that need to be considered. But the point is that snow removal experience is a deal-breaker. They don’t want someone who only knows *in theory* about snow removal. They want someone with *experience* removing snow. Right?
My point is that I feel NU should also be an essential, but not the *only*, qualification. But NU is not considered an essential qualification like snow-plowing is. Peoria is okay with someone who just knows NU in theory (or even someone who doesn’t know NU in theory), but has no experience with it. You think that’s okay, too — that he can learn on the job if he’s open-minded. I’ll bet an open-minded guy from the south could learn how to remove snow, too.
But that’s the difference. We can agree to disagree on this one. Nevertheless, I think if the city is serious about wanting to implement the Heart of Peoria Plan, then successful experience with implementing New Urbanism should be *an essential* (not *the only*) qualification.
You are right, CJ, I didn’t mean to argue that you thought being a new urbanist was the only qualification. I was simply pointing out the membership in CNU is hardly evidence of anything but paying some dues.
But for the record, I’d totally hire a PW director who had no snow removal experience as long as he had good experience in other areas, and more importantly, was an excellent manager. I would gather a huge Peoria priority is the combined sewer problem, but it would be difficult to find someone with that exact experience.
Finding the right employee is a hard thing. Excuse me for thinking your entire image of Barber has been colored by your perceived lack of his NU credentials. Personally, I don’t think a PW director would have nearly the influence on instilling NU principles than a director of planning and growth. More importantly, the crucial group is the Council (a point P-A-P amazingly got right). I want a PW director who has a proven track record of doing what his elected leaders ask him to do.
There are likely more important issues than New Urbanism, an attempt to hold on to the past. Yes, it will work in some areas with the right climate, people that are mobile without cars, and people that are willing to come out of the safety zone and “neighbor” in the idyllic image of Ozzie and Harriet.
Let’s be realistic and worry about the condition of streets, controlling rain runoff, making sense of the vehicle maintenance operations, being able to handle snow and ice problems, trying to figure out the mystery of street lighting or lack thereof, recognizing that some streets are main thoroughfares that are needed to move traffic and not “Sunday Drive” neighborhood streets, and why we don’t have coordinated traffic signals.
I am ‘ok’ with a PW director not having direct New Urbanist experience. They really are hard to find. But… we should hire someone who can demonstrate a willingness to grow professionally in that direction. If the guy does not even know what New Urbanism is or offers up disdain for the practice, then he should be summarily ruled out. If the enthusiasm isn’t there, move along.
JFD,
Yes let us be realistic.
New Urbanism isn’t holding on to the past. The past has already been lost. It is about developing a more sustainable future. Longer and longer commutes and greater dependence on automobiles is not a sustainable future.
What about the condition of streets? If we had more pedestrian friendly environments that were more dependent on public transportation, we would be able to have fewer cars on the road. Fewer cars mean less wear n tear on the roads. Take it a step further and one could actually envision a decline in the amount of square footage of roadway needed.
Rain runoff… ok.. let us reintroduce brick roadways. They are aesthetically more pleasing, they slow traffic, with the right bricks they require less maintenance, and they are better at controlling runoff. The water will actually absorb into the spaces between the bricks and break up the ‘rushing’ effect that asphalt/cement causes resulting in more ground water absorption.
Snow removal has little to do with New Urbanism other than to say the pedestrian friendly environments are much less dependent on roadways being cleared. Of course then there is the need for snow removal of the sidewalks, which in all honesty residents and businesses should be more accountable for.
Street lighting? This is a greater priority? Um… ok.
Yes some main streets will continue to be main streets but there is more than can be done to make them supportive of New Urbanism. Making them wider and faster is not one of them.
Coordinated traffic lights? This is a nuisance not a high priority.
Mahkno — exactly what I was trying to say. Amen, brother.
CJ — I know that this likely falls under the “no blogging about work”, and I’m not trying to pick on you, but I noticed in yesterday’s JS that Grace Presbyterian (your employer and church, right), was approved for there new building out in the hinterlands. 80 acres, I think I saw. What really got me was that the article said they were approved for something like 150 MORE parking spaces than the code would allow.
This is the struggle we face in Peoria: No matter what we do to the “Heart of Peoria”, there will continue to be the drive to expand northward. Why limit NU concepts to the older part of town? And how do we convince people and institutions — Grace as just an example — that they can flourish in “old Peoria”, and saving that, don’t need a suburban construct even in “new Peoria?”
Sud — It’s 60 acres, and yes, that falls under the “no blogging about work” rule.
But in general, I’m all for expanding NU principles to the whole city. The whole idea behind city planning is to manage growth, and it doesn’t appear our current methods are managing growth very well. We’ve created a city that is automobile-dependent, which is especially hard on children, the elderly, and the poor. It’s also hard on public works — when you make hard separations between land uses, it forces the building of more roads and storm sewers, and it forces heavier use of those roads and sewers. That means more maintenance for public works. Plus, the roads that are built are built into short little cul-de-sacs which are horribly inefficient for maintenance — especially snow removal.
We need a better plan. I think New Urbanism is that better plan.
CJ – I didn’t mean to overstate the acreage. And I don’t blame you for not blogging about it. But you bring up some excellent points about growth in Peoria. And that is why I always thought the Heart of Peoria Plan (and Commission) got it backward. If any part of Peoria needs new urbanism, it is the growth areas. As long as growth is unfettered and suburban in that part, there is likely little incentive to stay put in the old part.
I’m curious if in your research you have come across any cities like Peoria that have successfully adopted NU. The cases always put on a pedestal are Seaside and Kentlands, communities built from scratch, or places like Boulder where the profit to be made from ANY development will tolerate almost ANY restrictions. As I said before, I am a huge advocate of NU, but think we need to start talking about ONE Peoria, not the “heart” and the “North”.
Sud: Try Charleston.
http://pressomatic.com/charlestonguardian/upload/may2002supplement.pdf
THE NEW SCHOOL FOR — Traditional Architecture and Urbanism — Charleston is a Textbook
http://massengale.typepad.com/venustas/2004/03/a_new_urban_tou.html
(There is an infill housing stock photograph that is awesome.)
http://www.savethecity.org/aboutthecsc/
Be interested in knowing what you think about these sites.
Mayor Joe Riley has done an amazing job in transforming Charleston over the last thirty plus years via inclusionary government.