As I was standing in the shower this morning (March 7), and I'm thinking through an Open Space Ordinance for the city. As I get finished, it hits me that a comprehensive OSD should encompass three things: (1) Preserving sensitive areas from future growth, (2) reclaiming sensitive areas that have already been developed and (3) providing linkages between already existing OS areas (these linkages could be built or environmental in nature).
In a public setting, it's very difficult to pass comprehensive, bottom-up legislation, the foremost reason being because it's difficult to handle extreme change. The City could pass legislation tomorrow that makes all city services private affairs (meaning each citizen would need to pay for police services on their own), but they won't because that is such a marked difference from practice. It's possible to gradually phase out city services in favor of the private sector (trash collection is a good example), but again time is a factor.
For this reason, it is unlikely that all three aspects of an Open Space Ordinance could be passed simultaneously. It would be much more politically prudent to attempt to pass all three at separate times. Since development is occurring at such a rapid pace, the second option is somewhat limited in scope. If we pass an ordinance to reclaim areas that have already been built upon (such as a stream and riparian area), it's possible that in twenty years, Little Rock might have reclaimed all the environmentally sensitive areas. At that point it would turn outwards and see how development has still occurred in the last twenty years claiming environmentally sensitive areas. Little Rock must then turn around and fund the acquisition of those lands. Until the fundamental problem of encouraging responsible development occurs, the city will not make significant headway into the preservation of city-wide open spaces.
If this logic holds true, then the natural course of action is to address future growth first. Once future development has been instilled with the virtue of conservation, then the city can work to reclaim environmentally sensitive areas. At the culmination of that time period, not only will lands within the city have been addressed, but also the future growth. At that point, the city can stop funding acquisition of new lands. It's an economic decision of process.
How can the city address new developments in the city by encouraging the conservation ethic? One method is by passing ordinances that forbid building on certain types of land (steep slopes, waterways, etc.). These types of ordinances are very restrictive, however, because they eliminate the function of land. Eliminating functionality can affect property values, which makes these types of ordinances (however positive in attributes) not well received by developers and the general public.
Another method of addressing the conservation ethic is to make it economically beneficial to do so (to take a page from my pet training hand-book: "Positive Reinforcement"). A more politically expedient method of doing so is for the City Council to implement Impact Fees. Impact Fees are one-time fees assessed to new developments to pay for infrastructure improvements off-site that can benefit those in the new development as well as others. These fees must go into an account to pay for specific functions.
So, let's follow a hypothetical developer wanting to build a typical subdivision. And just to simplify things, let's assume that the land is already zoned appropriately (so that we don't have to deal with messy re-zoning requests). Normally what happens is that a developer has the land mapped out for maximum occupancy. So on twenty acres, he might build 20-25 homes. He then divides the land into 20-25 roughly equal sections. He then draws in the roads and utility lines that will serve the subdivision, and then re-adjust based upon rationality. He then submits this design to the local planning department that reviews it against the Zoning Map and Text, calculates its impact on the roads, and then approves the permit or sends it to the Planning Board for review (this doesn't normally happen; if it's a sound design and the land is zoned as such, it normally passes permitting).
At this point, depening on the place, the city or the developer pays to put in the infrastructure requirements, and then the city will pay for the maintenance of said utilities (I'm including roads as a utility in this. Sewage and water lines would be the other ones). Now, these 25 new homes are going to use their new roads, water lines, etc. but they will also be using already existing roads and water lines. Moreover, since water comes from a central location(s) they will be using up the water plant's capacity. Eventually (after enough new developments), the city will be at capacity for providing water, so the city must build a new water pumping station (or treatment plant, etc.) to provide more water for further growth.
With impact fees, a city can assess a new development a cost that the new development is imposing on the city. If a new development results in a consumption of enough water to warrant building a new water plant, then a percentage of that total cost should be assessed to the new developments.
So, over the course of ten years, let's anticipate that five new subdivisions like the one mentioned above, will be built. When all developments are fully built and house people, they will place a cumulative effect of a million gallons of water on the city (all these numbers are fictitious). Since the city is at capacity already, we can anticipate that adding a million gallons of water capacity will cost the city $100,000. To assess an appropriate cost, we could divide $100,000 by five to yield a cost of $20,000 per development. The city would then impose an Impact Fee of $20,000 per development to provide for the additional capacity that must be built.
In reality, the somewhat arbitrary numbers I threw around earlier would not be used. A study would be made of types of houses, the density of land, placement of the development, etc. While I think that Impact Fees should be imposed on all developments for all new services, as it pertains to the conservation ethic, only a Park/OS Impact Fee will be addressed here.
Since in our above scenario our developer did not take into account the contours of the land, he most likely had 25 parcels of property with various states of usefulness. Ten properties may have a creek running through their backyard. Another two may have a boggy area. Five of them may have a steep slope that prevents any useful activity. In an ideal world, those sensitive areas would be classified as Open Space and would be preserved from development. Since most developers will not, however, then the city will have to provide a park or open space area at another location. This will impose a cost upon the city, which would normally be shared by the rest of the city's population (a population that has already paid for their park services and aren't creating new demand; they are maintaining old demand). The city should turn around and impose a cost (an Impact Fee) on the development for having to provide new Park/OS services.
This method does allow a city to provide new parkland in growing sections of the city; however, it doesn't automatically protect the most sensitive of environmental areas (in my head, I automatically think of water). Furthermore, these funds are almost always demanded in the form of Active-Recreation, such as a baseball field, over flat, open parkland. There's no guarantee that these funds will be used for OS.
A city could, however, make a further provision in the Impact Fee Ordinance that developers who provide a certain percentage of land in their development as communal OS will be exempt from the Impact Fee. The developer can establish an easement with the city, where the city retains the right and the cost to preserve/maintain the land, or the developer can leave it under the control of the neighborhood property owners. Since additional costs could theoretically be assigned to different types of developable terrain, this means that additional deferral of costs could be implemented for those developers that make an effort to design the subdivisions around the natural features of the land. These Conservation Subdivisions usually have smaller lots, but the nature of the subdivision doesn't affect home size. Essentially, the property owners own smaller acreage next to a park, but don't have to pay for the park or take care of it themselves.
There are definite pros and cons to Impact Fees, but for the purposes of conservation in future subdivisions, they definitely warrant a further look (maybe next time!).
Monday, April 7, 2008
Thursday, April 3, 2008
San Diego
I've spent the last few days researching San Diego on the recommendations of the Open Space Review Committee.
Essentially San Diego's OS Policy centers around a conservation ethics, since there are more endangered and environmentally sensitive species in San Diego county than in any other county in California. What follows is the report I sent to Mark with an expanded commentary at the end.
The city of San Diego implemented an open space element into their General Plan in 1979.[1] In 2003, San Diego had a population of approximately 1,266,753 people dispersed over 324 square miles.[2] When looking at Figure 1, it is apparent that the total developed urban area of the city has grown 39%, from 79,067 to 110,044. Grassland, shrubland, and tree cover have decreased from a collective 127,647 acres to 96,368 acres. The current urban forest system has a total stormwater retention capacity of 82 million cubic feet. Without trees, the city would have to build $164 million in infrastructure to accommodate the runoff.[3] The forest system also removes 4.3 million pounds of pollutants from the air at a value of $10.8 million annually.[4] The trees also sequester (absorb) 9,000 tons of carbon dioxide annually and store 1.2 million tons collectively as biomass. [5] As the urban area of the city has grown, the “green” area of the city has decreased diminishing the ability of flora to reduce runoff and counter pollution. Continuing this trend could seriously damage the city’s ability to counter the effects of sprawl and the imprint of urbanization.
Figure 1—City of San Diego Landcover Change Trends (1985-2002)[*]
1985 acres 2002 acres 2002 Percent Percent change
Urban
79,067 110,044 51% 39%
Grassland
71,988 48,674 22% -32%
Shrubland
35,565 32,956 15% -7%
Tree Cover
20,094 14,738 7% -27%
Other
10,827 11,151 5% 0%
Total
217,542 217,564 100% 0%
[My apologies for the lack of formatting on the above table. I cut and pasted a Word document that didn't translate, and I don't have the time to make it pretty.]
The city’s Open Space Division within the Department of Parks and Recreation has been responsible for managing the open spaces within the city (including the Park Rangers in OS parks) and implementing the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP). In 1996, the MSCP was established to further aid in the protection of native endangered plant and animal species. San Diego county has the most endangered species in California,[6] but funding from sources such as the Environmental Growth Fund aren’t sufficient to cover the complete costs of management;[7] According to Paul Kilburg with the Open Space Division of the San Diego Parks and Recreation Department, these funds aren’t nearly enough to acquire all of the land that the city has been tasked with acquiring;[8] therefore, most of their funding comes from the city’s general fund. In the past, as some lands have become conservation districts because of endangered species, property owners have surrendered their land to the city or minimally developed it (25%).[9] This has provided the city with some land to preserve as open space, but it is not a guaranteed method of acquiring land.
Luckily, San Diego at large has a friendly nature toward the natural environment. Community volunteers actively help in revitalizing and maintaining parks, even if it is just to help build a ranger kiosk. There is not an overt hostility to parks in general. Also, the Sierra Club has gotten involved in creating “Friends of-” groups to help inform and mobilize the public to participate in the park process.[10]
Currently, the department is working on a Trails Master Plan, since it has been deficient in that area in the past. There are three-hundred plus miles of trails in the city that have not been properly mapped out or planned for.[11] Besides increasing funding, developing a plan for trails is the most important task for the open space division right now.
To address the 12 April 2007 comment (Karen) on the Open Space Blog regarding parks being unsafe, perhaps as the open space system becomes more advanced, Little Rock could implement a ranger system similar to the one in place in San Diego. Rangers make people feel safe by providing an on-site city authority figure. They do not have arrest powers, but they can issue tickets for misdemeanor offenses. Rangers can also provide tours or programming as the citizenry deems necessary.[12] Being on-site and mobile also allows the rangers to inform the central parks office of any issues that may arise regarding maintenance in the park.
[*] Urban Ecosystem Analysis, San Diego, California; American Forests; July 2003. p. 3
[1] The City of San Diego Progress Guide and General Plan (1979) (accessed February 8, 2008) http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/genplan/pdf/generalplan/gpfullversion.pdf. The open space element has since been combined with the conservation element in the current plan.
[2] Census.gov
[3] Urban Ecosystem Analysis, San Diego, California; American Forests; July 2003. p. 3 (accessed 7 February 2008) http://americanforests.org/downloads/rea/AF_SanDiego.pdf
[4] Ibid. p.3&19 American Forests uses UFORE Model for Air Pollution, developed for the USDA Forest Service to calculate the amount of pollution deposited in tree canopies and sequestered. Dollar values for air pollutants are averaged from State Public Service Commissions in various states. Externality costs include indirect costs to society, such as healthcare from air pollution
[5] Ibid. p.3
[6] Phone conversation with Paul Kilburg February 8, 2008
[7] Paul Kilburg. San Diego City Charter, Article VII, Section 103.1establishes the Environmental Growth Fund which provides funding to pay the principle and interest on bonds that are issued for the acquisition of open space lands.[7]
[8] Paul Kilburg
[9] Paul Kilburg
[10] Paul Kilburg
[11] Paul Kilburg
[12] City of San Diego Park and Recreation Dept., Regional Parks Ranger Program (accessed February 8, 2008) http://www.sandiego.gov/park-and-recreation/parks/drprangers.shtml
www.sandiego.gov/park-and-recreation/parks/drprangers.shtml
I also developed a list of endangered/environmentally sensitive plants and animals in Pulaski County from the 2007 Annual Report of the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, which is a division of the Department of Arkansas Heritage (DAH). Skip to pages 97-98 for Pulaski County listings.
Essentially San Diego's OS Policy centers around a conservation ethics, since there are more endangered and environmentally sensitive species in San Diego county than in any other county in California. What follows is the report I sent to Mark with an expanded commentary at the end.
The city of San Diego implemented an open space element into their General Plan in 1979.[1] In 2003, San Diego had a population of approximately 1,266,753 people dispersed over 324 square miles.[2] When looking at Figure 1, it is apparent that the total developed urban area of the city has grown 39%, from 79,067 to 110,044. Grassland, shrubland, and tree cover have decreased from a collective 127,647 acres to 96,368 acres. The current urban forest system has a total stormwater retention capacity of 82 million cubic feet. Without trees, the city would have to build $164 million in infrastructure to accommodate the runoff.[3] The forest system also removes 4.3 million pounds of pollutants from the air at a value of $10.8 million annually.[4] The trees also sequester (absorb) 9,000 tons of carbon dioxide annually and store 1.2 million tons collectively as biomass. [5] As the urban area of the city has grown, the “green” area of the city has decreased diminishing the ability of flora to reduce runoff and counter pollution. Continuing this trend could seriously damage the city’s ability to counter the effects of sprawl and the imprint of urbanization.
Figure 1—City of San Diego Landcover Change Trends (1985-2002)[*]
1985 acres 2002 acres 2002 Percent Percent change
Urban
79,067 110,044 51% 39%
Grassland
71,988 48,674 22% -32%
Shrubland
35,565 32,956 15% -7%
Tree Cover
20,094 14,738 7% -27%
Other
10,827 11,151 5% 0%
Total
217,542 217,564 100% 0%
[My apologies for the lack of formatting on the above table. I cut and pasted a Word document that didn't translate, and I don't have the time to make it pretty.]
The city’s Open Space Division within the Department of Parks and Recreation has been responsible for managing the open spaces within the city (including the Park Rangers in OS parks) and implementing the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP). In 1996, the MSCP was established to further aid in the protection of native endangered plant and animal species. San Diego county has the most endangered species in California,[6] but funding from sources such as the Environmental Growth Fund aren’t sufficient to cover the complete costs of management;[7] According to Paul Kilburg with the Open Space Division of the San Diego Parks and Recreation Department, these funds aren’t nearly enough to acquire all of the land that the city has been tasked with acquiring;[8] therefore, most of their funding comes from the city’s general fund. In the past, as some lands have become conservation districts because of endangered species, property owners have surrendered their land to the city or minimally developed it (25%).[9] This has provided the city with some land to preserve as open space, but it is not a guaranteed method of acquiring land.
Luckily, San Diego at large has a friendly nature toward the natural environment. Community volunteers actively help in revitalizing and maintaining parks, even if it is just to help build a ranger kiosk. There is not an overt hostility to parks in general. Also, the Sierra Club has gotten involved in creating “Friends of-” groups to help inform and mobilize the public to participate in the park process.[10]
Currently, the department is working on a Trails Master Plan, since it has been deficient in that area in the past. There are three-hundred plus miles of trails in the city that have not been properly mapped out or planned for.[11] Besides increasing funding, developing a plan for trails is the most important task for the open space division right now.
To address the 12 April 2007 comment (Karen) on the Open Space Blog regarding parks being unsafe, perhaps as the open space system becomes more advanced, Little Rock could implement a ranger system similar to the one in place in San Diego. Rangers make people feel safe by providing an on-site city authority figure. They do not have arrest powers, but they can issue tickets for misdemeanor offenses. Rangers can also provide tours or programming as the citizenry deems necessary.[12] Being on-site and mobile also allows the rangers to inform the central parks office of any issues that may arise regarding maintenance in the park.
[*] Urban Ecosystem Analysis, San Diego, California; American Forests; July 2003. p. 3
[1] The City of San Diego Progress Guide and General Plan (1979) (accessed February 8, 2008) http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/genplan/pdf/generalplan/gpfullversion.pdf. The open space element has since been combined with the conservation element in the current plan.
[2] Census.gov
[3] Urban Ecosystem Analysis, San Diego, California; American Forests; July 2003. p. 3 (accessed 7 February 2008) http://americanforests.org/downloads/rea/AF_SanDiego.pdf
[4] Ibid. p.3&19 American Forests uses UFORE Model for Air Pollution, developed for the USDA Forest Service to calculate the amount of pollution deposited in tree canopies and sequestered. Dollar values for air pollutants are averaged from State Public Service Commissions in various states. Externality costs include indirect costs to society, such as healthcare from air pollution
[5] Ibid. p.3
[6] Phone conversation with Paul Kilburg February 8, 2008
[7] Paul Kilburg. San Diego City Charter, Article VII, Section 103.1establishes the Environmental Growth Fund which provides funding to pay the principle and interest on bonds that are issued for the acquisition of open space lands.[7]
[8] Paul Kilburg
[9] Paul Kilburg
[10] Paul Kilburg
[11] Paul Kilburg
[12] City of San Diego Park and Recreation Dept., Regional Parks Ranger Program (accessed February 8, 2008) http://www.sandiego.gov/park-and-recreation/parks/drprangers.shtml
www.sandiego.gov/park-and-recreation/parks/drprangers.shtml
I also developed a list of endangered/environmentally sensitive plants and animals in Pulaski County from the 2007 Annual Report of the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, which is a division of the Department of Arkansas Heritage (DAH). Skip to pages 97-98 for Pulaski County listings.
Open Space Ordinances
Here's the list I developed last summer of various Open Space ordinances from around the United States:
Bucks County, Pennsylvania has a Model Ordinance regarding Performance Zoning in their District. This performance zoning sets Open Space Ratios for new developments as well as guidelines for developing (or not developing) certain areas. It is also very comprehensive in its listing of requirements for each specific residential land use. While this ordinance sets guidelines, it still allows developers high degrees of freedom to develop land in response to market conditions, while protecting critical resource areas.
San Francisco, California (Section 2) has a general open space policy, which is further developed for individual areas of the city. Their open space policy is part of a larger city scheme for protecting critical resources, such as waterways and sunlight. Little Rock could integrate a similar policy to address certain key areas, such as areas along Fourche Creek and the Arkansas River.
StormwaterCenter.net has resources on Open Space ordinances, as well as further information on the site on how to preserve stream buffers along waterways. Three open space ordinances are highlighted on this website (in addition to a Model Open Space Ordinance). Calvert County, MD, which focuses all or most of its design code around open spaces especially in the Rural Zoning District (RUR); Montgomery County, PA, which focuses its ordinance on Cluster Zoning or Open Space Residential Design, which seeks to minimize sprawl in residential development, by clustering houses closer together, leaving more common area or green space; and Hamburg Township, Michigan, which sets Open Space requirements, but also incorporates a commercial component for areas of 50+ acres, encouraging mixed-use developments.
Open Space Ordinance for the city of Oldsmar, Florida. Oldsmar's history dates to 1913 when automobile pioneer Ransom E. Olds purchased 37,541 acres (152 km²) of land by the northern part of Tampa Bay to establish 'R. E. Olds-on-the-Bay.' The name was later changed to Oldsmar, then to 'Tampa Shores' in 1927, and finally back to Oldsmar in 1937. Ransom Eli Olds named some of the original streets himself, such as Gim Gong Road. In recent years, Oldsmar has experienced explosive growth including the construction of many retail establishments as well as new hotels and industry which seem to mushroom up almost overnight. A new downtown is being developed which will bring back the 'old Florida' feel to the city.
The following is a scholarly examination of the methods available to local governments to conserve open spaces (i.e. impact fees, zoning types, etc.)Public policies for managing urban growth and protecting open space: policy instruments and lessons learned in the United States.
These last two documents were suggested to me by Phil Frana with the Honors College. Many thanks to his assistance.
Bucks County, Pennsylvania has a Model Ordinance regarding Performance Zoning in their District. This performance zoning sets Open Space Ratios for new developments as well as guidelines for developing (or not developing) certain areas. It is also very comprehensive in its listing of requirements for each specific residential land use. While this ordinance sets guidelines, it still allows developers high degrees of freedom to develop land in response to market conditions, while protecting critical resource areas.
San Francisco, California (Section 2) has a general open space policy, which is further developed for individual areas of the city. Their open space policy is part of a larger city scheme for protecting critical resources, such as waterways and sunlight. Little Rock could integrate a similar policy to address certain key areas, such as areas along Fourche Creek and the Arkansas River.
StormwaterCenter.net has resources on Open Space ordinances, as well as further information on the site on how to preserve stream buffers along waterways. Three open space ordinances are highlighted on this website (in addition to a Model Open Space Ordinance). Calvert County, MD, which focuses all or most of its design code around open spaces especially in the Rural Zoning District (RUR); Montgomery County, PA, which focuses its ordinance on Cluster Zoning or Open Space Residential Design, which seeks to minimize sprawl in residential development, by clustering houses closer together, leaving more common area or green space; and Hamburg Township, Michigan, which sets Open Space requirements, but also incorporates a commercial component for areas of 50+ acres, encouraging mixed-use developments.
Open Space Ordinance for the city of Oldsmar, Florida. Oldsmar's history dates to 1913 when automobile pioneer Ransom E. Olds purchased 37,541 acres (152 km²) of land by the northern part of Tampa Bay to establish 'R. E. Olds-on-the-Bay.' The name was later changed to Oldsmar, then to 'Tampa Shores' in 1927, and finally back to Oldsmar in 1937. Ransom Eli Olds named some of the original streets himself, such as Gim Gong Road. In recent years, Oldsmar has experienced explosive growth including the construction of many retail establishments as well as new hotels and industry which seem to mushroom up almost overnight. A new downtown is being developed which will bring back the 'old Florida' feel to the city.
The following is a scholarly examination of the methods available to local governments to conserve open spaces (i.e. impact fees, zoning types, etc.)Public policies for managing urban growth and protecting open space: policy instruments and lessons learned in the United States.
These last two documents were suggested to me by Phil Frana with the Honors College. Many thanks to his assistance.
Retroactivity
I have neglected this blog to a great degree, having undertaken several new initiatives since November. Among them is finishing up my thesis work for the Honors College at the University of Central Arkansas and resuming my internship with the Parks and Recreation Department of Little Rock. Both are related, but since there's more action packed into my internship I will begin my posts with the beginning of my internship.
January-esque
I've started my internship with the Parks and Recreation Department. I even have a title! Park Planning Specialist. Does it confer me any serious responsibilties? Not really...but it does establish me as an actual employee and not just an intern.
Of course, my internship is focused around developing an Open Space policy for the city. I'm not completely certain how I'll start. I'll need to do some consulting with Mark Webre (my boss) to find out what direction I should take. I get the feeling I'll just pick up where I left off last summer with a compendium of Open Space Ordinances from various cities.
January-esque
I've started my internship with the Parks and Recreation Department. I even have a title! Park Planning Specialist. Does it confer me any serious responsibilties? Not really...but it does establish me as an actual employee and not just an intern.
Of course, my internship is focused around developing an Open Space policy for the city. I'm not completely certain how I'll start. I'll need to do some consulting with Mark Webre (my boss) to find out what direction I should take. I get the feeling I'll just pick up where I left off last summer with a compendium of Open Space Ordinances from various cities.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Pedestrian Walkability
What follows is a paper for my Urban Geography course. Not the best work I've ever done, but slightly more statistical in nature. He was hard to figure out what exactly he wanted. He hasn't graded it, yet, so I don't exactly know how it rates. But I thought I'd put it here anyways.
Since the first ancestor of homo sapiens first stood erect, humans have walked. Over time, new methods of transportation would revolution human transit: Horseback, chariots, stagecoaches, and automobiles have allowed humans a manner of transit other than walking; however, the last revolution in movement is perhaps the most sinister of all. The environmental impacts of automobiles has proved to be enormous. American cities have become significantly less dense over time, since the rise of the automobile, due to sprawling development.i For the purposes of this paper, however, the potentially harmful effects of the automobile on the pedestrian nature of cities will be addressed.
Pedestrian-friendly communities have traditionally been associated with dense, mixed-use neighborhoods. Prior to the automobile revolution, the majority of transit occurred by foot. In Roman towns, no person had to walk more than ten minutes to a commercial center.ii In America prior to the early 1900s, carriages and rides by horseback were enjoyed by the wealthy, but the rank and file citizens of any city relegated themselves to walking. As such, the automobile became cheaper and more available to the average American over time. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) guaranteed bank loans to families mortgaging single-family homes; however, it didn't provide any guarantee for the renovation of existing housing stock. The provisions in FHA regulations encouraged the development of sprawling land-use patterns.iii
The Interstate Highway Act would exacerbate the problem by providing 41,000 miles of interstate. The refocusing of transportation from mass transit to the new interstate system made private commuting much more affordable for the populace.iv FHA regulations coupled with the thousands of miles of new roadway would work to encourage the segregation of all land uses. This segregation of land uses would work against pedestrianism in cities over time by necessitating a vehicle trip in nearly all instances. In suburbia, a typical household may generate thirteen vehicle trips per day on average.v Each stage in the evolution of the automobile has damaged the fabric of pedestrian spaces. The end result is three main reasons why pedestrian spaces aren't friendly in cities: 1) A lack of reason to walk, mainly because of a lack of nearby land uses worth walking to. 2) A lack of safety, whether real or perceived, in pedestrian spaces; and 3) lack of aesthetic reasons caused by ugly streetscapes.
As seen by the sprawling nature of modern-day cities, people have little ability to walk to a location of any appreciable distance. In fact, some factors that are more likely to increase walking or biking include living in a city center or in close proximity to a non-residential building, such as a grocery or drug store; and having good access to public transit.vi In fact, nothing creates walkable neighborhoods more than the notions of proximity and connectivity. Proximity refers to the mix and density of any given area. More compact places (i.e. more “dense”) support a wider variety of destinations near residential areas. Connectivity measures the street network and whether it provides direct routes, and whether there are safe connections for pedestrians and cyclists. vii Research suggests that streets laid out along a grid pattern are most conducive to pedestrian walkabilityviii by reducing trip distances (whether perceived or real), offering alternative pathways, and by slowing auto traffic.ix Studies have indicated that highly walkable communities generate twice as many walking-trips than less-walkable neighborhoods. Generally the extra walking-trips were for short errands or to work.x A six community study indicates that 56% of residents of condensed, traditional neighborhoods walked to nearby commercial areas, as compared to their suburban counterparts (33%).xi The data suggests that people won't walk unless they have a destination in close proximity. If research were conducted into the walking patterns of citizens of West Conway, it would most likely indicate that nobody walks in the neighborhoods for functional reasons, but rather walk for health reasons. Building traditional neighborhoods of mixed-uses encourages pedestrianism.
Yet another condition not conducive to pedestrian walkspaces involves the safety of a given street: streets that aren't or don't feel safe aren't effective walking areas. Because our nation has encouraged automobile usage by developing street patterns with high speeds and wide lanes to accommodate the maximum amount of cars possible at the fastest speeds possible, our principal and minor arterials have become our most dangerous streets. About 50% of the 51,989 pedestrian deaths occurred on these two types of roads between 1993 and 2004.xii The fatality rate of 20.1 per 100 million miles traveled makes walking the most dangerous mode of transit in America, especially when compared to the 1.3 per 100 million miles traveled by car or light truck.xiii Perhaps the biggest detriment to safe, walkable streets are the wide, long streets. The idea of streetscapes as outdoor rooms has suggested that visual enclosures slow down traffic, making the street more pedestrian friendlyxiv This idea works against a concept often implicit in traffic texts, that of “unimpeded flow:” the desire for increased traffic volumes by auto.xv Short blocks, narrower streets, and narrow curb radii all serve to slow down traffic, and promote a feeling of safety to nearby pedestrians. Furthermore, shorter blocks and narrow curb radii have the added bonus of offering a psychological benefit to pedestrians. More intersections means that pedestrians have more options as far as the route to take; they can gage their progress on a walk more easily, since pedestrians gage their walks on how many benchmarks they hit as they head to a destination. More intersections make it seem as if more progress is being made.xvi Yet, another component that makes the roads feel less safe is the lack of a buffer zone between streets and sidewalk. When people walk directly adjacent to a moving vehicle, there is the very real threat of being hit, but also an extreme perceived threat of collision (Dave Ward Drive in Conway being an example). On-street, or parallel, parking provides a buffer zone between a person on a sidewalk and a car on a street.xvii On-street parking also has the added benefit of calming traffic, since drivers perceive a danger to their cars by traveling too fast.1
These perceived safety issues border on human psychological/aesthetic concerns. People tend not to walk in areas that are boring, mainly because they feel exposed. Depending on the landscape architect, ratios of separation of space between buildings to building heights of 6:12 are encouraged.xviii When the streets are wider than this ratio, or the buildings are shorter, people feel exposed and vulnerable. Thus, people are more likely to frequent these locations by car. For this reason, many cities require building parking lots to be located mid-block or in the rear of the building, so that people may enjoy a street-scape where they are not exposed.xix Research has indicated that the ideal pedestrian space (sidewalk) is one where the buildings are near to the sidewalk (little or no setback), the buildings next to the sidewalk have items to capture the pedestrian's attention (in a downtown setting, open windows displaying the shops amenities), and a grid pattern of streets that allow the pedestrian to have a variety of choices about the direction in which he wants to travel.
Conway, AR has in the past made some poor decisions regarding pedestrian walkspaces. Oak Street has become a bastion of cars and parking lots, with no pedestrian spaces. A pedestrian feels exposed if they walk at the street-edge and vulnerable. If a pedestrian walks next to the building, they feel less inclined to cross the expanses of parking lot and street to get to a building on the other side. This necessitates a vehicle. Conway's Design Standards Pattern Book offers many opportunities to reverse some of the conventional methods and bad practices of dealing with walkable spaces. The Pattern Book seeks to eliminate the wide expanse of space that occurs when parking lots are put between the building and the street, thus making commercial developments more in tune with the 6:1 ratio.xx The Pattern Book also makes recommendations for providing aesthetic enhancements to pedestrian spaces to make them more interesting for the walker.xxi Perhaps the biggest attempt at pedestrian spaces, however, is Section 9 of the Pattern Book, which deals with mixed-use developments. By encouraging Mixed-Use Developments, in which residential units are located near commercial units (among other land use types). The elimination of the automobile trip for short errands and trips between adjacent neighborhoods is perhaps the most important method of encouraging pedestrianism.
Conway appears to be favoring pedestrianism by the recommendations put forth in the Pattern Book. While The most important thing Conway can do is plan ahead and not let future growth in Conway resemble Oak Street or West Conway; at least if we're to support pedestrianism. Future pedestrian orientation should be patterned like the downtown: Compact, safe and visually interesting.
1One study has indicated that a 5-10 mph reduction in traffic speeds increased property values of the surrounding residential neighborhoods by approximately 20% (Evaluating Traffic Calming Benefits, Costs and Equity Impacts, Todd Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 1999.)
2This 6:1 ratio is very close to the Golden Ratio that appears in nature quite frequently, perhaps suggesting its appeal to the human psyche.
iDuany, Andres and others, Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream, (North Point Press, New York, 2000) pg.85-97
iiCastagnoli, Ferdinando, Orthogonal Town Planning in Antiquity, (The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1971) pg. 122
iiiDuany, Suburban Nation, pgs.7-8
ivIbid. pg. 8
vIbid. pg. 20
viEwing, R. and Cervero, R. “Travel and the Built Environment: A Synthesis,” Transportation Research Record 1780, pg 87-114.
viiSaelens, B.E and others, “Environmental Correlates of Walking and Cycling,” Annals of Behavioral Medicine 25, no. 2 (2003): 80-91.
viiiFrank, L.D. and Engelke, P.O., “The Built Environment and Human Activity Patterns,” Journal of Planning Literature 16, No 2 (2001) 202-218.
ixGreenwald, M.J and Boarnet, M.G., “Built Environment as Determinant of Walking Behavior,” Transportation Research Record, 1780, pg. 33-42.
xEwing, “Travel and the Built Environment” pg. 87-114.
xiHandy, S.L, “Urban Form and Pedestrian Choices, Transportation Research Record 1552, pg 135-144.
xiiErnst, Michelle, Mean Streets 2004: How Far Have We Come? Surface Transportation Policy Project (2004); pg. 7-8
xiiiIbid. pg. 5
xivSmith, D.T. And Appleyard, D. “Improving the Residential Street Environment,” Federal Highway Administration, (GPO, Washington, DC, 1981) pgs. 123-130.
xvDuany, Suburban Nation, pg. 64
xvi Untermann, R.K., Accommodating the Pedestrian—Adapting Towns and Neighborhoods for Walking and Bicycling, (Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1984) p. 27
xviiDuany, Suburban Nation, pg. 71
xviiiIbid. pg. 79
xixIbid. pg. 16
xxDesign Standards Pattern Book, Zoning Ordinance, Article 1101 (2007); pg. 15
xxiIbid. pg. 20
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Soapbox Update
I've begun planning out (no pun intended) my soapbox in greater detail. Phil suggested that I start giving some fast facts that shock people (e.g., for every 15 miles you live away from your workplace, an extra $6,000 you spend annually on automobile expenses) into finding out what they can do about it.
So I started a thread on HCOL that discusses the premise of the Soapbox: I'll present a brief overview of zoning and planning history in the United States, briefly mentioning urban development prior to Euclid v. Amber, but really focusing on the Euclidean Zoning that has occurred since then.
Basically in America prior to 1926, cities followed a standing practice of growing organically, that is buildings were erected as they were needed. When a city reached a threshold in which it needed some service (butcher), that service (Butcher Shop) opened up at the center of the area to be served. The butcher shop may be in the center of town, right next to six-story apartments. Later, when more services were needed, they moved in to where they could best serve the community. This worked fine for relatively unimportant services such as laundromats (if they existed), bookstores, etc. But what about when America started to Industrialize? At that point in time, you begin to see Industrial factories belching smoke right next to a hospital, right next to a sewage plant, right next to a residential community. This created a most unhealthy situation.
After Euclid v. Amber, zoning as a tool for guaranteeing segregated land uses really took off. Cities began not just segregating out the undesirable land uses, but also segregating different land uses. Whereas prior to Euclidean zoning, an apartment complex may be developed right next to a single-family house, Euclidean zoning usually guaranteed that Multi-family residential lots would NOT exist right next to a single-family lot suburb.
What's more, non-offensive commercial uses (office space, bookstores, dry cleaning) were usually relegated to commercially-zoned areas far away from a residential sector. After all, nobody wants a bookstore right next to their house.
Over time, as Euclidean zoning replaced the traditional, organic growth of cities, and cities started segregating EVERY single type of possible land use, cities reached an unhealthy situation in which any trip to any part of the city required an automobile. If you wanted to walk to a bookstore, tough! You'll have to drive.
Enter New Urbanism. New Urbanism seeks to reverse the negative aspects of Euclidean zoning by allowing mixed-use developments, and the growth of urban areas oriented around the pedestrian, not the automobile. It doesn't seek to reverse growth (though it does tend to slow it down to a responsible level); it doesn't prohibited growth (far from it); it merely provides what I call "Planned Organicism", by attempting to formally zone cities in such a way that they might have grown organically in the first place.
And from there, I go into discussions of social problems. My polemic is that any social problem (poverty, environmental, racism, etc.) can be solved through responsible New Urbanism.
And just for kicks, here's a critique of New Urbanism that is slightly off. I can disprove his argument if I wanted to, but that's outside of the context of this post. :D
So I started a thread on HCOL that discusses the premise of the Soapbox: I'll present a brief overview of zoning and planning history in the United States, briefly mentioning urban development prior to Euclid v. Amber, but really focusing on the Euclidean Zoning that has occurred since then.
Basically in America prior to 1926, cities followed a standing practice of growing organically, that is buildings were erected as they were needed. When a city reached a threshold in which it needed some service (butcher), that service (Butcher Shop) opened up at the center of the area to be served. The butcher shop may be in the center of town, right next to six-story apartments. Later, when more services were needed, they moved in to where they could best serve the community. This worked fine for relatively unimportant services such as laundromats (if they existed), bookstores, etc. But what about when America started to Industrialize? At that point in time, you begin to see Industrial factories belching smoke right next to a hospital, right next to a sewage plant, right next to a residential community. This created a most unhealthy situation.
After Euclid v. Amber, zoning as a tool for guaranteeing segregated land uses really took off. Cities began not just segregating out the undesirable land uses, but also segregating different land uses. Whereas prior to Euclidean zoning, an apartment complex may be developed right next to a single-family house, Euclidean zoning usually guaranteed that Multi-family residential lots would NOT exist right next to a single-family lot suburb.
What's more, non-offensive commercial uses (office space, bookstores, dry cleaning) were usually relegated to commercially-zoned areas far away from a residential sector. After all, nobody wants a bookstore right next to their house.
Over time, as Euclidean zoning replaced the traditional, organic growth of cities, and cities started segregating EVERY single type of possible land use, cities reached an unhealthy situation in which any trip to any part of the city required an automobile. If you wanted to walk to a bookstore, tough! You'll have to drive.
Enter New Urbanism. New Urbanism seeks to reverse the negative aspects of Euclidean zoning by allowing mixed-use developments, and the growth of urban areas oriented around the pedestrian, not the automobile. It doesn't seek to reverse growth (though it does tend to slow it down to a responsible level); it doesn't prohibited growth (far from it); it merely provides what I call "Planned Organicism", by attempting to formally zone cities in such a way that they might have grown organically in the first place.
And from there, I go into discussions of social problems. My polemic is that any social problem (poverty, environmental, racism, etc.) can be solved through responsible New Urbanism.
And just for kicks, here's a critique of New Urbanism that is slightly off. I can disprove his argument if I wanted to, but that's outside of the context of this post. :D
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Beginnings
I decided it was necessary to start a professional blog, which rather than a daily account of my adventures, will be semi-continuous effort detailing my professional research and interests.
Right now I'm gearing up to present a Soapbox for the UCA Honors College. My topic: How Suburbia Killed the Community. Basically, I'm introducing New Urbanist and Neo-Traditional approaches of urban and suburban development to those that attend.
So far, a large portion of my data is coming from Suburban Nation by Duany, Plater and Zyberk, the folks behind dpz.com. They're actually involved in the Hendrix Traditional development going on. Also, this one. Hopefully, that'll link you to them. If not, select Arkansas and then in the pop-up box, choose the two Hendrix studies.
Anyway, I didn't mean for this to turn into a real post, so I'll go now.
Happy Beginnings
Right now I'm gearing up to present a Soapbox for the UCA Honors College. My topic: How Suburbia Killed the Community. Basically, I'm introducing New Urbanist and Neo-Traditional approaches of urban and suburban development to those that attend.
So far, a large portion of my data is coming from Suburban Nation by Duany, Plater and Zyberk, the folks behind dpz.com. They're actually involved in the Hendrix Traditional development going on. Also, this one. Hopefully, that'll link you to them. If not, select Arkansas and then in the pop-up box, choose the two Hendrix studies.
Anyway, I didn't mean for this to turn into a real post, so I'll go now.
Happy Beginnings
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
