“It’s not the words, it’s the context of the words.” – Chris Rock
Context. Responsible reporting and analysis provide the reader with the overall circumstances that form the setting for an event or situation, or, in other words, the “context” of the topic at hand. Without context, individual facts are rendered meaningless at best, misleading or deceptive at worst—making true understanding difficult.
The timeframe one uses for analysis is critical to context. Several years ago, I had the honor of attending a luncheon with the Dalai Lama. What I remember most from the Dalai Lama’s engaging lecture was his humility and surprising sense of humor. Throughout his remarks, he emphasized the context of his work in terms of centuries, even millennia. He challenged the audience to think not in terms of days, weeks or even years, but in terms of what our actions mean for the next 100 or even 500 years.
For a humbling mind experiment, take 10 minutes to think about your life in the context of 100 or 500 years, looking back on history and into the future. It is not quite “Cosmos” time, but it is enough to have fun and to contemplate the point.
The Dalai Lama’s comments came to mind again this past month with two news items in the local media. In Harrisburg, increased parking rates have led to vigorous discussion, while the debate about whether or not Harrisburg is “gentrifying” received additional attention. Both discussions, however, suffered from a lack of context.
On the parking front, various news outlets and commentators decried the increased parking rates currently taking effect in downtown Harrisburg. These changes will raise rates for street parking to as high as $3 per hour on certain streets from the current $1.50 and were widely panned.
However, as Paul Barker astutely pointed out in his Burg blog, “The High Cost of (Cheaper) Parking,” higher parking rates can have significant beneficial effects on the overall community. Far from being a detriment to business, higher parking rates can help ensure the availability of short-term street/surface parking for business patrons while encouraging longer term commuters to use lower rates in underused garages. If commuters choose either to carpool or use alternatives, such as public transportation, biking or even old-fashioned walking to get to their destination, numerous potential societal benefits may stem from decreased car traffic. If we want a livable, vibrant city in future decades, paying a bit more to park now might be a good idea after all.
The local gentrification debate suffered from an even greater lack of context. A recent article wondered if Harrisburg is “gentrifying” and asked people their opinion. As a long-term resident (since 1995) and real estate developer (since about 1998), I have a vested interest in this debate. Whatever one thinks of gentrification on a national level, the local debate requires context in order to be understood.
The first and most important missing contextual point is population. In the 1950s, Harrisburg’s population peaked at around 100,000 residents and fell to a low of slightly less than 50,000 at the turn of the century, while the surrounding suburban community grew its population and economy. Since 2000, Harrisburg has had a net increase of about 700 people, the first increase in half a century.
Now, let’s generously assume that the current trend continues, and Harrisburg is able to add 100 new residents a year indefinitely into the future. At that rate, it would take about 500 years just to bring the population back to where it was 50 years ago. At least in this century, it is clear that there is plenty of room for everyone who wants to call Harrisburg home, regardless of your personal situation.
Our company, WCI Partners, has renovated about 100 homes in Olde Uptown Harrisburg since 2005, including 18 new homes that were built on vacant city lots (two of the lots required demolition of an existing structure). Most renovated homes were purchased from out-of-town owners. Other leading companies, such as Brickbox, GreenWorks and Vartan, have converted old offices buildings to residential living, restored long-vacant buildings or, in rare instances, built new on vacant land. No one was displaced or forced to leave.
As a result of these activities, there are increased city revenues, new businesses and jobs, decreased crime, improved streetlights and sidewalks and a host of other benefits to new and prior residents in the city. That said: the area where WCI works only occupies about nine square blocks. Out of about 12 square miles of land in the city (even assuming one-half is not residential use), this means that we have impacted less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the land area and less than one-half of 1 percent of all residential dwellings. In other words, the recent debate often missed the point of context and scale.
Even when added with that of other developers and individual homeowners, it is simply not at the scale required to dramatically impact the city population as a whole or, conversely, deprive anyone of a place to live. Thus any argument—ironically often from nonresident, elitist/privileged voices—about a “dark side” to development or “invasion” of the neighborhood is mere silliness, outdone only by its meaninglessness to any rational debate.
Harrisburg continues to make small, but positive strides toward returning to its past vibrancy, and we can look forward to one day again being a leading capital city. Increased parking rates and small sprouts of development are but two of the many signs of good things to come for all residents and would-be residents. With any luck, Harrisburg’s resurgence will come well within the Dalai Lama’s time horizon and be embraced with contextual understanding.
J. Alex Hartzler is publisher of TheBurg.
