Race to the Edge - How to do Infill

Matt Yglesias, in a September 12 Slate article, called for a “Race to the Top” for infill.   I’m working on a variation of that concept, thought it’s more like “Race to the Edge,” to pay better attention to the edges where new density meets the existing neighborhood.  (See more on my project and the August edition of Zoning Practice here).

In researching a project on neighborhood-friendly density and edges, I came across great examples from Canada.  There are a couple of interesting aspects of their approach:

• In Canada, cities come right out and call their redevelopment plans “intensification guidelines.”  They don’t sugarcoat it with “vibrant” and “thriving,” or hide the fact that density is involved.   
• However, they lead the planning effort by character areas.  This is really important and something I've heard from my U.S.-based colleagues.
• Second, they have marvelous graphicsthat show the remarkably small amount of land needed for effective corridor/intensification.  These graphics are reminiscent of the master plan for the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor.
• They invest a lot of attention in tapering, massing and transitions to the neighborhoods.
• In Canada, they are paying special attention to mid-rise buildings and their role.  Toronto launched new codes, adopted in 2010, to encourage intensification along their Avenues (translated: crappy arterials) that is compatible with neighborhoods.  Here is a presentation on the planning steps. Of course Toronto gets both love (Richard Florida! Jane Jacobs!) and gruff (ugly high rises),  but they are getting it done.

Would this work here?

• First – architects and planners will have much to criticize on a formulaic approach to infill.  The back side of the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor is a textbook case of “architecture-by-stepdown ratio,” and it can be visually jarring.
• Second – mid-rise in Toronto is up to 11 stories, but in smaller cities, the reality is more in the 2-4 story range.  
• Finally – I jumped into the “how to do infill” fray because it is not just about architecture.   It’s about making and sustaining a great place.   

The planning firm Brook McIlroy (www.brookmcilroy.com) has graciously given permission to use these renderings.  Check their work out.

New Publication on Density and Neighborhoods

Example of stepdown heights between taller buildings and SFH in Arlington VA

Hi All - I am the author of the latest Zoning Practice, a publication of the American Planning Association.  The August 2012 edition is called "Density and the Planning Edge."

I've long been frustrated with planning at this edge (having started my planning career in Arlington as an activist living on this edge but supportive of Metro-oriented density).  My main complaints are:

• There are legitimate concerns on livability that can be better addressed if included at the front end of the planning process: noise, circulation, design, restaurant smells, parks, drainage, parking, garbage pickup, traffic, loading and deliveries, crosswalks
• There are also long term impacts that can be better managed when maintenance and management are front-end topics. 
• There is no organized, central repository where local decision makers, developers and homeowners can go to see policies, stipulations, maintenance agreements, photos, plans and graphics that have worked (or fell short) in other places.
• If this is a top reason why good redevelopment and density do not take place, why are we not addressing as a planning imperative? 

I will be blogging on some really great case studies I found, but will also be on the stump to create a bigger, more helpful project.  Let me know if you are interested, or send changemakers my way (lisa[at]nisenson.net].  Any ideas of who to approach as partners or funders also welcome.

You can see the official blurb at  http://www.planning.org/zoningpractice/

To order a copy, mail a $10 check to

Zoning Practice Back Issues
American Planning Association
205 N Michigan Ave
Suite 1200
Chicago, IL 60601

Sarasota is Making Portland’s Same Mistakes

This week, Fast Company profiled Saratopia, a local spoof on Portlandia, which itself is a spoof on the quirky ways of Portland.  Self-deprecating, brainy creativity is not the only thing we share.  We both have maps with a controversial line – the urban boundary.

Portland’s Urban Growth Boundary was set up in the 1970’s to protect its Cascadia-ness - trees, salmon and hiking trails. Under Oregon law, the regional governing body, Metro, has to maintain a 20-year supply of residential land, or else increase the boundary.   

Like Portland, Sarasota County drew an urban services boundary in the 1970’s.  Over the years, voters  have strengthened the line, which runs roughly along I-75 North-South alignment (but does some weird jiggles in the northern and southern parts of the County).   The line can be moved, but only with a unanimous vote of the County Board.

While both boundaries have their critics (see here for Portland and here for Sarasota), there is no doubt that (1) both have shaped growth in the direction intended – infill and redevelopment, and (2) both have amazing natural landscapes (also known as economic engines) that are sensitive to the effects of poor land management.

These boundaries are not perfect, and their ability to juggle many different community aims, such as property rights, infrastructure costs, affordable housing and economic development requires a deft touch.  Many studies on the Portland boundary deliver mixed reviews, in part because study time frames were short and reviews of affordability were conducted while many non-boundary related forces were driving up prices.     

But there is one striking observation from Portland that merits attention here in SW Florida.  The 24 municipalities within Metro are required to make public facility plans that ensure that zones inside the UGB will be developed at urban densities.  Studies on development not located in cities found a pattern of low density and sprawling patterns – both inside and outside the boundary, though mostly in areas straddling the line.  So what would this have to do with Sarasota?

• Sarasota 2050 was intended to make sure that land inside the USB was developed according to good planning and redevelopment principles, while allowing development outside the USB in village formats.   However 2050, which should have been 90% about redevelopment and 10% about what happened outside the boundary, was flipped.  All the oxygen in the conversation landed on a town center in rural lands, a fiery discussion still raging today.  The conversation on redevelopment did not really ever take off.  
• In looking at the bigger development proposals that have come forward over the past several years, they tend to all hug the USB.  These are the larger undeveloped parcels.  Within the cities, there is a fair amount of small site, single-project infill. 

The circles show approximate location of major proposals. The service boundary is a thin red line on the map.

• One way to look at projects within the USB is that the more inefficient they are, the faster we run out of “room” inside the boundary and the higher the pressure on all five Commissioners to expand the boundary.  ("Room” is in quotation marks because the County typically looks at conventional, sprawl-type development to calculate developable land and remaining capacity.  Vertical capacity of the two and three story type will be great grist for a future post).

This is what makes the discussions on Fruitville Initiative and the original University Town Center plans so important.   Benderson asked for a dismantle of its new urbanist plan  and is now preparing to build the only non-Mormon, enclosed mall in the country.  The Fruitville plan (consultant rendering by Moule and Polyzoides here) was criticized for its density, but in the grand scheme of things, will be the type of development that holds the line.   The more sprawl inside the boundary the sooner the line goes eastward. 

Open Source at Congress for the New Urbanism - the Planning Edge

Here is a poster for the new project called the planning edge.  I'll be hosting open sessions for 3 days getting ideas on how to better address the edge where new development meets the neighborhood.  It's where the most anxiety lies with residents and frankly where the larger share of impacts can happen if not well examined, addressed and maintained.

However, through great up-front design, good policies, and a commitment to maintaining good features over the long haul, we can make sure the new development is a great neighbor.  And if I sound confident, it's because I was one of those anxious neighbors who saw a big project become one of the best examples of how to bring new density alongside established neighborhoods. It also became a neighborhood where families like mine can no longer afford to live next to great new places. 

What is the Opposite of Traffic?

March is as good time as any to talk traffic Sarasota - in fact with all the spring-breakers and snowbirds - its the best time. Traffic is always a top concern here on the Sun Coast, so a reasonable question seems to be "What is the opposite of traffic?" 

When it comes to reducing traffic and congestion, all sorts of ideas get put on the table - widen lanes, install roundabouts, more transit. But, there is a growing body of work forming around factors that actually subtract traffic from the system - most of which have to do with rejiggering land use.  Informally among transportation geeks, they are called the "8 D's." The photo above is from a recent presentation by Jerry Walters of Fehr and Peers in California. He and several other colleagues have gone through hundreds of transit-oriented and walkable projects to judge whether they actually reduce auto trips.

There is no magic equation for weighting the 8 "D's," which will vary greatly by region and transit level (heavy versus local bus).  For example, a city that does not have great development scale may be able to make up for this deficiency by having favorable demographics.  On the flip side, pressure to keep density low can have costs that play out on the road.

The main questions for a place like Sarasota are:

1) How does this apply to cities where local bus is the highest transit technology?From the slide above, proximity to rail is the example given for distance to transit.  But like thousands of other communities, we have bus, but no rail.  The studies researchers used included a lot of bus system-linked communities (with plenty of Florida examples).   But, it would be nice to subtract out the information from higher transit technology to get a better sense of the investments and development patterns likely to deliver results for us bus-dependant communities.  Will Doig of Salon posted an article today on why it is time to love the bus - so let's think about bus TOD while we are at it.  Not the fancy bus rapid transit bus, but the workhorse local bus.

2) What does the density need to be?  This is ALWAYS the first question here, so let's cut to the chase.  What types of building arrangements are we talking about to successfully take car trips off the road with walk, bus, and bike travel.

3) The 9th D - Digital - Information technology can be reasonably included in the 8th D (Demand Management).   However, we could do so much more with maps, information and apps that are built around the user and where he or she needs to go (and get back).  One of the more immediate benefits of this ninth Digital- D is that it is not dependent on transit oriented development or land use and the slow slog of construction.  I am thinking that teasing this out and elevating it as our #1 D is a great bet in the near term.  Our transit System (SCAT) recently added NextBus type technology to check when the next bus arrives.  This blog post shows the augmented reality in San Fran for fidning bus stops.   We love technology.

 For more information on the "oppostite of traffic" see these links from Ellen Greenberg, who has a marvelous set of slides on this very topic from presentations in Boise, Idaho.  Many thanks and a big hat top to Ellen and her work.